Freeman v. Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center et al

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 22 ). Therefore, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/24/2018. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Richard Curtis Freeman, II,
Plaintiff,
v.

Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center,
Carolina Center for Occupational Health,
Nurse A. Allen, Nurse R. Jordan, and
Stephany Singleton,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:18-875-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Curtis Freeman, II, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). 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. On July 23,
2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) in which she
recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 22).
The Plaintiff was informed of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 22 at 9).
However, he did not file objections, 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, 27071 (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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th

Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file
specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the
district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 22). Therefore, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
August 24, 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.

2