Cetina v. Michelin North America et al

Filing 194

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 89 . The court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, Michelins Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 74) and Maugers Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89) are GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 6/11/2013. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Tanya Lynn Cetina,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michelin North America,
Newbold Services,
Clint Morgan,
Dave Murphy,
Dave Brown,
Dave Mauger,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:12-2222-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on May 23, 2013, recommending that Defendant Michelin
North America’s (“Michelin”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 74) and Defendant Dave Mauger’s
(“Mauger”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89) be granted. (ECF No. 192).1 The magistrate judge
provided Plaintiff a notice advising her of her right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 192,
Attach. 1). However, the plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so
has run.
In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an
explanation for adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
1

The 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. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976).
Accordingly, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report, or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

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 the magistrate judge’s
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 and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report and
incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, Michelin’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 74)
and Mauger’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89) are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
June 11, 2013
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, if applicable.

2