Brown v. Argentino et al

Filing 66

ORDER Adopting 37 Report and Recommendation that Defendant Davenport's 17 Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Davenport be DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/17/13. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Darnell Brown,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Ofc. Danny Davenport, Cpl. Barry )
Robinson, Nurse Denise Argentino, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 8:13-cv-01499-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Darnell Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defendant Danny Davenport filed a motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 17. This matter is
now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
grant Defendant Davenport’s motion to dismiss and dismiss Defendant Davenport as a result of
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
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
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’ ”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Davenport’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) be GRANTED
and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Davenport be DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
October 17, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

2