Nelson v. Lexington County Jail
ORDER ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judges 58 Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's 55 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 44 Motion to Dismiss and Remand is therefore MOOT. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/30/2017.(gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Officer D. Gilmore,
Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-03453-JMC
This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), filed on September 25, 2017 (ECF No. 58), recommending that
Plaintiff Joshua Nelson’s (“Plaintiff”) case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), as
he moved to voluntarily dismiss his case. (ECF No. 55.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) 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. 58-1.)
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 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); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme
Court has authorized the waiver rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule
conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate's
recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those issues on
which further review is desired.’”) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (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. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 55) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Remand (ECF No. 44) is therefore MOOT.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
October 30, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?