From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benton v. Stanley Black & Decker

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
May 2, 2024
Civil Action 24-852-MGL-PJG (D.S.C. May. 2, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 24-852-MGL-PJG

05-02-2024

JAMES BENTON, Plaintiff, v. STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER, ASHLEY STRICKLAND, WINNY WILLIAMS, JOE, and BRIAN, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff James Benton (Benton) filed this lawsuit against the above-named Defendants. He is self represented.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Benton's claims against Defendants Ashley Strickland, Winny Williams, Joe, and Brian be dismissed without prejudice and 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 April 12, 2024, but Benton 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 pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Benton's claims against Defendants Ashley Strickland, Winny Williams, Joe, and Brian are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Benton 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

Benton v. Stanley Black & Decker

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
May 2, 2024
Civil Action 24-852-MGL-PJG (D.S.C. May. 2, 2024)
Case details for

Benton v. Stanley Black & Decker

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BENTON, Plaintiff, v. STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER, ASHLEY STRICKLAND…

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

Date published: May 2, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 24-852-MGL-PJG (D.S.C. May. 2, 2024)