Al-Mujahidin v. United States of America et al

Filing 29

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 4/25/2014.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Muhammad Al-Mujahidin,

)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
United States of America and Federal Bureau
)
of Investigation,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________

Civil Action No.:9:13-2672-mgl

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Muhammad Al-Mujahidin (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the McCormick Correctional
Institution in McCormick, South Carolina, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
asserting a claim under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Plaintiff contends he filed a
FOIA request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking “any speeches/Public Addresses
made by Reverand. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” (ECF No.1 at 4.) Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on February 19, 2014 (ECF No.23.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South, this
matter was referred to a United Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling and issuance of a Report and
Recommendation. On March 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and the case be
dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 27.) 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.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF
No. 24.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on April 17,
2014. In the absence 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 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted and this matter be
dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge

Spartanburg, South Carolina
April 25, 2014

-2-