Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 156

ORDER adopting 140 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 136 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/23/19. (kmca)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Darrell L. Goss, Plaintiffs, v. Bryan P. Stirling, Charles Williams, Thomas Robertson, A. Gladwell, Stephanie Marshall, Officer Stanley Terry, C. Jones, Deborah Richter, NFN Franklin, NFN Peek, NFN Hall, John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Juanita Moss, Willie Smith, Chaplain Barber, and Canteen Manager Yeldell, Defendants. _________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 6:18-3245-BHH ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 140) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 136 ) be denied. After carefully reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full. Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report setting forth the filing history of this case, and concluded that Defendants timely filed their answer and properly served Plaintiff, so the motion for default judgment is meritless. (ECF No. 136 at 2.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on August 16, 2019. 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 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”) (citation omitted). After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 140) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 136) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina August 23, 2019 ***** 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-

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?