Barber v. Webster et al

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Report (ECF No. 11 ), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/24/2017. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Atticus McNeill Barber,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Mr. Phillips Webster;
)
Mr. P. Dowling;
)
Editor in Chief, and
)
Reporting News Anchor,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 5:17-cv-02482-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action
seeking relieve pursuant to Title 42, United States Code Section 1983. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate
judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), that this case be dismissed with prejudice because (1) Title 42, United States Code
Section 1983 cannot be used as an avenue for bringing defamation claims; (2) no plausible
constitutional violation is asserted as to any defendant; and (3) the deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s
complaint cannot be cured by amendment. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file
objections to the Report and his right to bring the case to proper form by the objection deadline.
(ECF No. 11-1). However, Plaintiff did not file any objections and did not bring the case into
proper form, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). In
the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the

1

Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 11), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
October 24, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2