Opinion
Civil Action 6:23-1880-BHH
06-01-2023
Latasha Boyd, a/k/a Latasha Monique Boyd, Plaintiff, v. Derrick S. Wilkey, Sr., Defendant.
ORDER
BRUCE H. HENDRICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Latasha Boyd's (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint filed 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 May 8, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), summarizing Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action because Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendant is a state actor or that he was a wilful participant in any joint action with a state official, and because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Attached to the Magistrate Judge's Report was a notice advising Plaintiff 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 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. 9), and the Court dismisses this action pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B), and without leave to amend or issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.