Walker et al v. Royster et al

Filing 42

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; adopting 39 Report and Recommendation, granting 22 Motion to Dismiss, filed by School District of Greenville County South Carolina, W Burke Royster. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/14/2013. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Sean Stephen Walker,
Plaintiff,
v.
W. Burke Royster, Superintendent, and
School District of Greenville County,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:12-3399-TMC
OPINION & ORDER

The plaintiff, Sean Stephen Walker (“Walker”), proceeding pro se, brought this action
against the defendants alleging violation of certain constitutional rights.

(ECF No. 19.)

Originally, Walker alleged that the defendants violated his son’s constitutional rights by
disciplining him with insufficient due process, interfering with his Second Amendment and Fifth
Amendment rights, and violating his right to defend himself under state law. However, after the
magistrate judge notified Walker that he could not represent his son pro se, he amended his
complaint to assert claims on his own behalf for violation of his parental right to guide and
manage the education of his child.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the amended

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (12)(b)(6). (ECF No. 22.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), this case was referred to a magistrate judge for all pre-trial proceedings. This
matter is now before this court on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), recommending that the court grant the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 39.)
Although Walker was advised of his right to file objections to the Report, (ECF No. 39 at
10), he did not file any within the applicable time period. In the absence of objections, this court

is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. 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 results in a party’s
waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that 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).
In light of the Report’s apt analysis, and after a thorough review of the record in this case,
the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein.

Therefore, the court grants the

defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
August 14, 2013