Shaw v. Momin et al

Filing 21

ORDER ACCEPTING 17 Report and Recommendation; It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/12/2013. (mbro)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Ricki Mauritta Shaw, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) Ovesh Momin; Onali Momin; ) Masuma Momin, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00275-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 17], filed on March 21, 2013, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff brought this action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge's 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. 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). 1 Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 17-7]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report within the prescribed time limits. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, 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). 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 such 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). Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report, and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 17]. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina April 12, 2013 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?