Vance v. Holder et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING 9 Report and Recommendations; Case is DISMISSEDwithout prejudice to allow Plaintiff to allege facts that support a claim for relief. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/27/2012. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Ricky Lee Vance,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
United States of America,
)
Eric H. Holder, Jr., AG; Harold Lippin1
)
Director of Bureau of Prisons;
)
John Does, 1 to 50;
)
Jane Does, 1 to 50;
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 6:11-cv-03460-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Doc. 9], filed on January 17, 2012, recommending that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint [Doc. 1], be dismissed without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to allege facts that support a
claim for relief. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 and
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b),
2671-2680. 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

1

This correct spelling of this Defendant’s name is as follows: Harley Lappin.
1

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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
9 at 9]. However, Plaintiff filed no 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 careful review of these documents, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. [Doc. 9].
Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the above listed case is DISMISSED,
without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to allege facts that support a claim for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
2

February 27, 2012

3