Cutner v. Wilson et al

Filing 61

ORDER ACCEPTING 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's 39 Motion for Default is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings is GRANTED. Defendants have until March 25, 2013 to file their answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 3/8/13. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Lamont Cutner,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Ofc. Michael Marshal, Ofc. K. Harrington, )
and Wilson Simmons,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 6:12-cv-02544-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter is before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin
McDonald’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) of the District of South Carolina, and filed on February
13, 2013. ECF No. 48. Plaintiff Lamont Cutner (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently
incarcerated at Lee County Correctional Institution in Bishopville, South Carolina, brought
this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default
Judgment on or around January 14, 2013, and the Magistrate Judge recommends that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied. ECF Nos. 39 & 48. The Magistrate Judge further
recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings
be granted.
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
Page 1 of 2 

the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or
recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. “The failure to file objections
to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.” Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see Carter v.
Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Furthermore, in the absence
of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). In this case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
March 4, 2013. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed objections, and the time to object
has passed.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and

Recommendation

accurately

summarizes

the

case

and

the

applicable

law.

Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Responsive Pleadings is GRANTED. Defendants have until March 25, 2013 to file their
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 8 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina
Page 2 of 2