Harper v. Stirling et al

Filing 73

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 62 Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSING this case with prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/8/2017.(cwhi, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Wyatt Earp Harper,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NFN Cawthan, Business Office,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 9:16-cv-00404-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Wyatt Earp Harper, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R)
of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 71]. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss this
case. R & R at 10.
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 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 R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the

1

Plaintiff’s objections were due by October 23, 2017. See ECF Nos. 71 & 72.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and adopts and
incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 71] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 62] and DISMISSES this case with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
November 8, 2017

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2