Urato v. Weiner et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendation; It is therefore ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/13/2012. (mbro)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Joseph Dominick Urato,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
David Weiner, Greenville County
)
Sheriffs Office; Jonathan M. Gregory, )
County of Greenville; and Mark Moyer, )
County of Greenville,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

C/A No. 6:12-2096-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald 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.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Dkt. # 12 at 7). 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).
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 (Dkt. #
12) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Complaint in the
above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
September 13, 2012