Foster v. McMaster et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendations; This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 5/6/2010. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Arthur Foster, # 270123, Plaintiff, v. State Attorney General Henry McMaster; Jon Ozmit [sic], Attorney General, South Carolina Attorney General Office; Brad Cranshaw, Attorney General, South Carolina Attorney General Office; Richland Police Department; Richland County Police Chief; Leon Lott, Sheriff Richland County Sheriff Department; Larry Smith, Solicitor, Richland County Solicitor Office; Columbia Police Department; Charles Austin, Police Chief, Columbia City Police Department; South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, SLED, Connected Unknown Agents; Spartanburg County Police Department; Spartanburg County Police Chief, Spartanburg County Police Department; Chuck Wright, Sheriff, Spartanburg County Sheriff Department; Trey Gowdy, Solicitor, Spartanburg County Solicitor Office; Richard Warden, Attorney at Law; Mike Curley, Bonding Agent, Defendants. ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A NO. 6:10-748-CMC-WMC OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe for pre-trial proceedings

1

and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On April 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired. 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 the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident 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 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.") (citation omitted). After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina May 6, 2010
C:\Documents and Settings\Mlb87\Local Settings\Temp\notes6030C8\10-748 Foster v. McMaster adopt rr dism wo prej wo svc.wpd

3