DeJesus-Brito v. Spartanburg County Detention Facility et al
ORDER: After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Report & Recommendation [ECF No. 16 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court summarily DISMISSES without prejudice all defendants except Defendant Christi Barber. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/11/2017. (prou, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Carlos Rafael DeJesus-Brito,
Spartanburg County Detention Facility,
Chuck Wright, Allen Freeman, Mike Jones, )
Cathy White, Christi Barber, Sonya Paz,
Deputy Jordan, and Deputy Padget,
Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-01472-RBH-KDW
Plaintiff Carlos Rafael DeJesus-Brito, a local detainee proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-captioned defendants. The matter is before the Court
for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D.
West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.).
See R & R [ECF No. 16]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss all
defendants except Defendant Christi Barber.1 R & R at 7–8.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge authorized service on Defendant Barber. See ECF No. 14.
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 16] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court summarily DISMISSES without prejudice all defendants except Defendant Christi Barber.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
September 11, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Plaintiff’s objections were due by August 24, 2017. See ECF Nos. 16 & 17.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?