Williams v. Maye et al

Filing 17

ORDER Accepting 14 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for a stay of this case is DENIED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/6/13. (kmca)

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

Gerald Rudell Williams, # 20137074
previously #21405
Plaintiff,
v.
Ervin J. Maye, Assistant Solicitor;
Lt. Charles B. Padget, Saluda County
Sheriff Officer,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 8:13-cv-02673-JMC
ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
___________________________________

This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), [ECF No. 14], filed October 15, 2013, recommending that the above-captioned case be
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. It is further recommended that
Plaintiff’s request for a stay of this case be denied. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment for false imprisonment and false
arrest. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on these matters which the
court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge's Report 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 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 [ECF No. 14 at 7]. However,
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
1 

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, 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 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).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation and the record in this case, the court finds the magistrate judge’s Report provides an
accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the record in this case. The court
ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 14]. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service
of process. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a stay of this case is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

November 6, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2