Ashby v. Tollison et al

Filing 62

ORDER adopting 53 Report and Recommendation, denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment as moot. The court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/21/2017.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
William Mark Ashby,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Officer Tollison; Major Joe Tyson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-02581-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 53), filed on April 19, 2017, recommending
that Plaintiff William Mark Ashby’s Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failing to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.
41.)
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, which 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.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 53-1.)
However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 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
1

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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and it does not contain clear error.
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53).
Moreover, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41) is DENIED as moot and
the court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
June 21, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2