Ham v. Thompson
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 . It is ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/11/2014. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No 6:14-cv-00783-JMC
This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF No. 21), filed on August 18, 2014, recommending that
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) be granted. Plaintiff brought this action
seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report set forth in detail the relevant facts and
legal standards on these matters 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. §
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 21 at 12).
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
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 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. 21). For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
September 11, 2014
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?