Workman v. Vandermosten et al

Filing 111

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 104 Report and Recommendation. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 63], GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 69], and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 6/12/2018. (gpre, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Olandio Ray Workman,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
John Vandermosten, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
________________________)

Civil Action No.: 6:17-cv-00766-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). See ECF No. 104. The Magistrate Judge recommends
denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Id. at p. 11.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and 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 R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
No party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the

1

Plaintiff’s objections were originally due by May 4, 2018. See ECF Nos. 104 & 105. The Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections and extended the deadline to May 22, 2018. See ECF
No. 108. However, Plaintiff has not filed objections.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and
incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 104]. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 63], GRANTS Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment [ECF No. 69], and DISMISSES this action with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
June 12, 2018

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2