Strickland v. WGCL CBS Atlanta et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 15 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable A Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr on 4/27/18. (alew, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Cale Marcus Strickland,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WGCL CBS Atlanta, Steve Doerr,
Mark Pimental,

) Civil Action No. 7:17-cv-03255-AMQ
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
Plaintiff Cale Marcus Strickland (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this
action alleging diversity of citizenship as the basis for jurisdiction and asserting a state
law claim for defamation against defendants. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald recommending dismissal of the action without
prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(ECF No. 15). The Report was issued in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B) for the District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge McDonald issued the Report on March 29, 2018. (ECF No. 15).
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the right to file objections to the Report, the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report, and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 15 at 4). As of the date of this Order,
Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report or may recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). 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); see Wells v.
Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme Court has authorized
the waiver rule that we enforce… ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning
appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate’s
recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those
issues on which further review is desired.’”) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155
(1985)).
After a thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the
Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and has determined
that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court adopts the
recommendation and incorporates the Report herein by specific reference. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ordered that the complaint filed
by Plaintiff be dismissed without prejudice.

ORDERED, that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is adopted
as the order of this Court, and this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 27, 2018
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.