Shippy v. Jefferies

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 28 Report and Recommendations. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure of service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/27/10. (awil)

Download PDF
Shippy v. Jefferies Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Sukanya R. Shippy, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) ) Stacey L. Jefferies, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) C.A. No. 7:10-cv-00906-JMC ORDER This is a civil action filed by pro se Plaintiff Sukanya R. Shippey. In his Report and Recommendation, filed on September 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the court dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Entry # 28] for failure of service of process. The Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 1 The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of her right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Entry # 28 at 3]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). After a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation [Entry # 28] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina October 27, 2010 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?