McRant v. Warden MacDougall Correctional Institution

Filing 33

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 29 . The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report. 29 . The Respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/27/2015. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Jovan McRant,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden MacDougall Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.

Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-03179-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF No. 29), filed on May 22, 2015, recommending that
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted (ECF No. 20). The Report sets forth
the relevant facts and legal standards which this 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).
The court observes that Petitioner has filed a twenty-two page document that is
characterized as an “Objection” to the Report on the docket and includes the phrase “objections
to R and R” in various parts of the document. (See ECF No. 31.)

However, a review of

Petitioner’s “Objection” reveals that it does not include any specific objections to the Report, but

appears to be a general recitation of issues previously raised. (See ECF Nos. 21-6 at 1-14, 24,
31.)
In the absence of objections to the 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); Brunson v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice of Fed. Bureau of Investigation, C/A No. 3:11–cv–2659–
JFA, 2011 WL 6122747, at *1 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2011) (finding that plaintiff had not raised specific
objections when he failed to address any of the reasons that the Magistrate Judge gave for
recommending that his case be summarily dismissed). 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).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 29). For the reasons set out in the Report,
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (ECF No. 20.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 27, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina