Klein v. United States of America, The et al

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Environmental Protection Agency, The, United States of America, The adopting 35 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/19/15. (alew, )

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

Chris Robert Klein,
Plaintiff,
v.
The United States of America; The
Environmental Protection Agency, its
officers and assignees,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-02163-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF No. 35), filed on July 27, 2015, recommending that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and/or Failure to State a
Claim (ECF No. 22) be granted. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards
which this 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).
None of the parties have filed objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the 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).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 35). For the reasons set out in the Report,
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and/or Failure to State a
Claim is GRANTED. (ECF No. 22.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 19, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina