Rouse v. Patrick et al
Filing
16
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 . The Complaint in the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Brenda B.Carpenter, Chief Magistrate Judge. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/23/2013. (kric, ) Modified on 5/23/2013 to edit text (kric, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Wade Valdaise Rouse, #11666,
Plaintiff,
v.
Stanley Patrick, Edgefield Police
Department; Brenda B. Carpenter,
Chief Magistrate Judge,
Defendants.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 8:13-1044-TMC-JDA
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin 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.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The
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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 10 at 4).
However, 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).
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 (ECF
No. 10) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Complaint in the
above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Brenda B.
Carpenter, Chief Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
May 23, 2013
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?