Hunt v. Naval Hospital Beaufort et al
Filing
12
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 10 Report and Recommendation. The Plaintiffs action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 6/7/2016. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Kalvin Dontay Hunt, #10241269,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Naval Hospital Beaufort and
Case Pro Incorporated,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 8:16-1038-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial
handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 10 at 7). Plaintiff, however, filed no objections to the Report, and the time to
do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 10) and incorporates it herein.1 It is therefore ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 7, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
1
The court notes that, in addition to the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant
Case Pro, Inc. fails because Case Pro is a private actor and Plaintiff does not assert a close relationship between
Case Pro and a state actor. DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 506 (4th Cir. 1999) (“[T]o become state action,
private action must have a sufficiently close nexus with the state that the private action may be fairly treated as that
of the State itself.” (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
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?