From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alston v. Nielson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Feb 27, 2024
Civil Action 0:23-05800-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 0:23-05800-MGL

02-27-2024

LONDELL LASHUN ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. DEVON RUSSELL NIELSON, Mailroom Clerk, and B. MCCLEAVE, County of York, individually and their capacities, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Londell Lashun Alston (Alston) filed this action against Defendants Devon Russell Nielson and B. McCleave. He is representing himself.

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court dismiss this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 29, 2024. To date, Alston has failed to file any objections.

“[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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge's previous Report and Recommendation is DEEMED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Alston is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Alston v. Nielson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Feb 27, 2024
Civil Action 0:23-05800-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2024)
Case details for

Alston v. Nielson

Case Details

Full title:LONDELL LASHUN ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. DEVON RUSSELL NIELSON, Mailroom…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

Date published: Feb 27, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 0:23-05800-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2024)