Williams v. Cole et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendations; It is thereforeORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/9/2012. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION

Derrick Lamont Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Judge Durham Cole;
Judge Jason Thomas Wall;
Judge Roger Couch; and
Judge Ebner Gown a/k/a Gowan,
Defendants.
_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 7:11-3414-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during state court criminal
proceedings.

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Wateree River Correctional

Institution and filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., all
pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge.

On January 6, 2012,

Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
recommending that the Complaint in the above-captioned case be dismissed without
prejudice.

(Dkt. # 9).

The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal

standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Report without a recitation.

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 to which specific objections are 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (Dkt. # 9 at
7). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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 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 Report and the record in this case, the court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (Dkt. # 9) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Complaint in the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without

2

prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 9, 2012
Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3