Hause v. Bastian et al

Filing 41

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and DISMISSING this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/25/2015.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA' /

Zu\5FEB2S p \:41
Stephen Mark Hause,
Plaintiff,
v.

Lt. Jeremy Vetter, Major Jones,
James Metts, CO Haldane Bastain,
Michael Hudson, Sgt. Travis Felder,
and Sgt. Melissa K. Lyons,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIA No.: 9:13-3531-RMG

ORDER

------------- )
For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees and adopts the Report and
Recommendation ("R & R") of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. No. 39), as the order of the Court.
Background

Plaintiff Stephen Mark Hause, an inmate at Lexington County Detention Center in
Lexington, South Carolina, filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983. (Dkt. No.1).
However, prior to disposition in this matter, Defendants filed a Suggestion of Death as to
Plaintiff on October 16,2014. (Dkt. No. 31). Defendants served the Suggestion of Death upon
Plaintiffs next of kin andlor successor on October 21,2014. (Dkt. No. 35). The Magistrate
Judge recommends dismissal because no further filings or documents have been filed on the
Plaintiffs behalf. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 39). No objections have been filed to the R & R.
Discussion

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is required to make a de

1

novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which a specific objection has been made,
and 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)(I).
Here, however, because no objection has been made, this Court "must 'only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. '"

Diamondv. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the
R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,200 (4th Cir. 1983).
In reviewing the record, this Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and finds Plaintiff s next of kin and/or successor has failed to timely file a motion to
substitute parties within ninety days of the date of service of the Suggestion of Death. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 25. Therefore, because a motion to substitute parties was not timely filed, Plaintiffs
claim must be dismissed.
Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 39) as the Order
of this Court and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Honorable . hard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
February
2015
Charleston, South Carolina

2