Vaughn v. Anderson County et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 . This case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 6/29/2015. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
EARNEST E. VAUGHN, SR., formerly
246912, also known as Earnest E. Vaughn,
also known as Earnest Edward Vaughn, Sr.,
also known as Earnest Edward Vaughn,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ANDERSON COUNTY; SHERIFF
)
SKIPPER; DEPUTY M. W. HUNICUTT; )
and DEPUTY, all in both capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 8:15-cv-01954-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Earnest E. Vaughn, Sr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Anderson
County, Anderson County Sheriff Skipper, and two Sheriff’s Deputies. (Doc. #8). This matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United
States Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.).

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that this Court dismiss the case without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process. (Doc. #15). Plaintiff’s objections to the Report were due by June 22, 2015. Plaintiff
failed to file objections, and this matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections

to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a
case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report in accordance with this standard, and it
concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s legal and factual analyses are sufficient to warrant
summary dismissal of this case. The Court again notes that Plaintiff has failed to file objections
to the Report.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #15). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
June 29, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina