Hunt v. Stevenson
Filing
13
ORDER AND OPINION ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendation. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/8/2014. (mbro, ) Modified on 8/8/2014 to edit text (mbro, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lynn Larry Hunt, #169197,
a/k/a Larry Lynn Hunt,
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Warden Robert Stevenson,
)
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 6:14-2712-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Lynn Larry Hunt, (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Murray Unit of the Broad River
Correctional Institution at Columbia, South Carolina, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South. On July 9, 2014, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 11.)
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF
No. 11 at 4.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on July 28,
2014. In the absence objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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 and advisory committee’s
note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly,
the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 8, 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?