Weaver v. Clerk of Court et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 8 Report and Recommendations; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/13/2012. (mbro, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION William Jerrod Weaver, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) 7th Circuit Clerk of Court; ) 7th Circuit Public Defender, Spartanburg; ) Assistant Public Defender ) Richard H. Whelchel, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No.7:12-cv-0357-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8]. Pro se Plaintiff filed the Complaint attempting to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on March 2, 2012, recommends that the court dismiss the Complaint in this case without prejudice. [Doc. 1]. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 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 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). 1 Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8 at 6]. 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 Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8]. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina April 13, 2012 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?