Randolph v. Harter et al
ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/11/18. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Lee Randolph, Jr.
Lee Harter and Cathay Hughes,
Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-689-TMC
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint
against newspaper editor, Lee Harter, and publisher, Cathy Hughes, alleging slander and
defamation of character. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), 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”),
recommending that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 8 at 6). However,
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, 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 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 & Accident 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 magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 8), which is incorporated
herein by reference. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
April 11, 2018
Anderson, South Carolina
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.
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?