Parks v. Walmart 3222

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/13/10. (awil)

Parks v. Walmart 3222

Doc. 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Nathan J. Parks ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Walmart 3222 ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

C.A. No. 8:10-1822-JMC

ORDER

The pro se Plaintiff filed this action alleging claims for race and gender discrimination and wrongful termination against Defendant Walmart, his former employer. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation suggests Plaintiff's Complaint [Entry # 1] be dismissed without prejudice. The Report and Recommendation, filed on August 3, 2010, sets forth the relevant facts, which this court incorporates 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 objection is 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation within the prescribed time limits. 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 and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint [Entry #1] be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626 (1962). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina September 13, 2010 2