Christian v. Greenville South Carolina, City of

Filing 36

ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's 11 Motion to Dismiss is Denied as Moot. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/28/16. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Gregory T. Christian,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Greenville, South Carolina,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:16-1757-TMC-KFM

ORDER

Plaintiff, Gregory T. Christian, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial
handling. In his Report and Recommendation (“Report”), the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s
motion to amend his complaint and motion for reissuance of summons and recommended that
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be denied as moot. (ECF No. 22). The parties
were advised of their right to file objections. (ECF No. 22 at 4). However, no objections have
been filed, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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).
1

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 22) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is DENIED as moot.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
July 28, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1

Since the filing of the Report, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on July 7, 2016 (ECF No. 26), and
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF No. 33).
2