Lewis v. Florence County Detention Center

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/12/15. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Justin Jamal Lewis, #2014-6150,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Florence County Detention Center,
Defendant.
___________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 8:14-4665-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Justin Jamal Lewis (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is 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) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South
Carolina.

On December 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 10.)
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 10 at 5.) On December 31, 2014, the envelope containing

Plaintiff's copy of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) as well as Order that
advised the plaintiff of his responsibility to notify the Court in writing if his address changed
was returned to the Clerk of Court, marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as
Addressed, Unable to Forward." (ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on January 5, 2015.
In the absence 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 and advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate
Judge's findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are subject to summary
dismissal. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

January 12, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

-2-