Al-Mujahidin v. Nelson et al
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, )
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,
Kenneth Nelson, S.C. Dept. of Corr.,;
Capt. A. Stewart, and Mr. Odom,
Civil Action No. 9:20-1908-BHH
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.
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
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
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?