Howard v. Robinson
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 11 Report and Recommendation and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/20/2016. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Freddie Lee Howard, #5763-5958,
Chief Lamaz Robinson - 0082,
Johnston Police Department,
C/A No.: 8:16-836-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
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 April 1,
2016, 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. 11.)
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 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.
On April 29, 2016, the envelope containing the Text Order granting an extension
of time for Plaintiff to file objections (ECF No. 15) was returned and stamped “Return to
Sender, Undeliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff was
advised by order filed on April 1, 2016 (ECF No. 10), of his responsibility to notify the
Court in writing if his address changed. Plaintiff was also informed that his case could
be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court's order. (ECF No. 10 at 2.)
Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on May 21, 2016. In
the absence of 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 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are
subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted
and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 20, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?