Morgan v. Self Regional Healthcare

Filing 74

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 59 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Self Regional Healthcare, adopting 72 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 7/6/11. (awil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
George F. Morgan,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Self Regional Healthcare,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )

C.A. No. 8:10-cv-00382-JMC

ORDER

This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
[Doc. # 72], filed on June 9, 2011, recommending Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. # 59] be granted. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation without a recitation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).

DISCUSSION
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. # 72] and incorporates it
herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #59] is
GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ J. Michelle Childs
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
July 6, 2011