Shealy v. Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC

Filing 38

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting #36 Report and Recommendations, granting #25 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC as set out. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/22/11. (awil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Michael Shealy,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Georgia-Pacific Wood Products, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.8:11-cv-00757-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.
36]. Plaintiff’s lawsuit arises out of his termination from his employment with Defendant. Plaintiff
alleges causes of action for defamation, breach of contract, and breach of contract accompanied by
a fraudulent act. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on October 31, 2011,
recommends that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted. [Doc.
25]. 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
1

recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
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. 36]. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings[ Doc. 25] is
GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
November 22, 2011

2