Mack v. South Carolina Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 27 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 24 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Davorious M Mack. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/22/2011. (mbro, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Davorious M. Mack, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) South Carolina Dept. of Corrections; ) Michael McCall, P.C.I.; ) Ltd Haronff, P.C.I.; ) Sgt. T. Robertson, P.C.I.; ) Cpl. R. Root, P.C.I., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) C.A. No. 6:11-1230-TMC ORDER Davorious M. Mack (Mack), a pro se plaintiff, filed this civil action against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Report), filed on August 11, 2011 (Dkt. No. 27), recommends that the court deny the Mack's motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 24). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Report without a recitation. The magistrate judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. recommendation to this court. The magistrate judge makes only a 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 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). Mack was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (Dkt. No. 27-1). However, Mack has filed no objections. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report, 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 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 the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report (Dkt. No. 27) and incorporates it here. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 24) in the above-captioned case is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina November 22, 2011 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?