United States of America v. Butts

Filing 35

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 32 Report and Recommendations, granting in part denying in part 23 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by United States of America as set out. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/19/11. (awil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
United States of America,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Jimmy W. Butts,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 6:11-cv-01041-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.
32].

The Magistrate Judges’ Report and Recommendation, filed on September 14, 2011,

recommends that this case, based on Plaintiff United States of America alleging that Defendant
breached a contract he entered into with the Department of Education, be denied in part and granted
in part. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards
on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a
recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
1

[Doc. 32 at 5]. However, neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. 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 and
Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District
Court based upon such 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 Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 32]. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 23] is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 19, 2011

2