Pauling v. Wright et al

Filing 49

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs action, (ECF No. 1), be DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/15/2016.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Courtney Lamont Pauling,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Chuck Wright; Neal Urch;
)
William J. Church; T. Hadden;
)
A. Styles,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:14-cv-04501-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 45), filed on October 27, 2015, recommending that
Plaintiff’s action, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed without prejudice. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation herein without a recitation.
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, and 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

In this case, Plaintiff was advised of the right to file an objection to the Report “within
fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by November 13,
2015. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff filed an Objection on December 22, 2015. (ECF No. 47.)
“[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).

After a thorough

review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds that the Report provides an accurate
summary of the facts and law and that there is no clear error.
Therefore, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 45). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action, (ECF No. 1), be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
January 15, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2