Littlejohn v. NASA
Filing
12
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 . It is therefore ORDERED thatthe Complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuanceand service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/4/2014. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Quintin M. Littlejohn,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
)
NASA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 6:14-cv-00111-JMC
ORDER
Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter
is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
[ECF No. 9], filed on January 15, 2014, recommending that the Complaint [ECF No. 1] be
summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and 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 [ECF No. 9 at 4].
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. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 17]. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is therefore ORDERED that
the Complaint [ECF No. 1] is SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
February 4, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina
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?