Al-Mujahidin v. Nelson et al

Filing 41

ORDER- The Court adopts and incorporates Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 38 ); grants Plaintiff's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35 ); and hereby dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 01/08/2021.(cpeg, )

Download PDF
9:20-cv-01908-BHH Date Filed 01/08/21 Entry Number 41 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Muhammad Al-Mujahidin, #103968, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Kenneth Nelson, S.C. Dept. of Corr.,; ) Capt. A. Stewart, and Mr. Odom, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) Civil Action No. 9:20-1908-BHH ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Muhammad Al-Mujahidin’s pro se complaint alleging a violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for initial review. On December 1, 2020, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice. Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only 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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the 9:20-cv-01908-BHH Date Filed 01/08/21 Entry Number 41 Page 2 of 2 Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 38); grants Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35); and hereby dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge January 8, 2021 Charleston, South Carolina 2

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?