Martin v. Eagleton et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 12 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's claims against Mrs. Graves are DISMISSED without issuance and service of process. This action remains pending against the otherDefendants. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 10/4/2017. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
WARDEN WILLIE EAGLETON, MRS.
GRAVES, KATURAH GAUSE, and MR.
Civil Action No. 8:17-02159-MGL-JDA
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST MRS. GRAVES
WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting Plaintiff’s claims against Mrs. Graves be dismissed without
issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on September 15, 2017, ECF No. 12, but Plaintiff
failed to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Plaintiff’s claims against Mrs. Graves are DISMISSED without issuance
and service of process.
The Court notes this action remains pending against the other
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 4th day of October 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from
the date hereof, pursuant to 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?