Reid et al v. Verdin et al

Filing 35

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 31 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/14/2018. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Bobby J. Reid,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Letitia Verdin, Henry J. Mills, W. Walter
)
Wilkins, Candace F. Clark, Daniel R.
)
Hughes, Evan C. Bramhall, John B.
)
Duggan, Ann Marie Howell, James E.
)
Hudson, and Howard Steinburg,
)
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________

C/A No.: 6:18-987-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On July 13, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this case
be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No.
31.)
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.

On July 30, 2018, the envelope containing the Order and Report and
Recommendation of Judge McDonald (ECF Nos. 30, 31) was returned and stamped
“Return to Sender, Attempted – Not Known, Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff
was advised by order filed on April 23, 2018 (ECF No. 8), of his responsibility to notify
the Court in writing if his address changed. Plaintiff was also informed that his case
could be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court's order. (ECF No. 8 at 3.)
Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on July 27, 2018. In
the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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). 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 and advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are
subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted
and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 14, 2018
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.