Chase v. Greenville Technical College et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/8/2013. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Isaac Peter Chase,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Greenville Technical College; Susan N. )
O’Brien; Patty Amick; Lucy Pulliam; and )
Keith L. Miller,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________
)

C/A No. 6:12-03376-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se , filed this action alleging discrimination by the
Defendants.

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

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), 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 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. (Dkt. No. 16 at 9).
However, Plaintiff did not file any objections. In the absence of objections, this court is
not required to provide an explanation for adopting the magistrate judge’s
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 the record in this case, including the
complaint and Plaintiff’s answers to the court’s special interrogatories, the court adopts
the Report (Dkt. No. 16) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the
complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is summarily 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
January 8, 2013