Smalls v. Obama et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 9 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/29/16. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kathaleen B. Smalls,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
President Barack Obama; Ashton Carter, )
Secretary of the Department of Defense; )
Loretta Lynch, Attorney General; United )
States Army; United States Marine Corps; )
United States Navy; United States Attorney )
for the District of South Carolina;
)
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________

C/A No.: 7:16-cv-1788-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of United States Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). On June 9, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the District Court dismiss this
action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 9.)
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 to which specific objections are made.

Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on June 27, 2016. 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 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 Defendants are
subject to summary dismissal.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
herein by reference, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

July 29, 2016
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.