Jackson v. Chicago Bridge & Iron

Filing 23

ORDER and OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/23/17. (alew, ) Modified on 2/23/2017 to edit text (alew, ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
Civil Action No.: 6:16-1905-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
vs.
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
Chicago Bridge & Iron,
)
Defendant. )
______________________________ )
James E. Jackson,

Plaintiff James E. Jackson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action against
Chicago Bridge & Iron (“Defendant”), for failure to hire him. He alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), asserting the Defendant discriminated against him
because of his age and because he appeared to be in ill health. (ECF No. 1.) In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial handling
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On January 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge Austin issued a Report recommending
that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failing to complete service, pursuant to
Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 21.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time for
doing so expired on February 16, 2017.

1

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and
Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and
this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 23, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2