Anderson v. Davita Upstate Dialysis Center et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 . It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed, without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 4/2/2015. (kric, ) Modified on 4/2/2015 to edit text (kric, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Benjamin Lewis Anderson,
) Civil Action No.: 6:15-cv-1114
ORDER AND OPINION
Davita Upstate Dialysis Center, Loma Linda )
University Medical Center of the Adventist )
Plaintiff Benjamin Lewis Anderson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this
personal injury action against Defendants Davita Upstate Dialysis Center and Loma Linda
University Medical Center of the Adventist Health System (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.)
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.")
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on March 11, 2015.
No objections have been filed and the time for doing so expired on March 30, 2015. In the
absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.1983). Moreover, a
failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th
After a thorough review of the record in this case and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the standard set forth above, the
Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without prejudice and without service
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
April 2, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
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?