Littlejohn v. United States of America

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 . The Petitioners Petition for Writ of Mandamus [Dkt No. 1] is SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/30/2013. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Quintin M. Littlejohn,

)
)
)Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00870-JMC
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
United States of America,
)
with all agents in active concert
)
both individually and in their official capacity,
)
)
)
Respondent.
)
__________________________________________)

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. No. 8], filed on April 9, 2013, recommending that Petitioner’s Petition for
Writ of Mandamus [Dkt. No. 1] be summarily dismissed in the above-captioned case without
prejudice and without service of process. 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 and Recommendation 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 Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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).
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 8 at 5].
However, Petitioner filed no objections to the Report.
1

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 Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the record in this case, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s 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. 8]. For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus [Dkt.
No. 1] is SUMMARILY DISMISSED the above-captioned case without prejudice and without
service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
April 30, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2