Opinion
Civil Action No. 0:16-03048-JMC
10-31-2016
Marquis Breeland, Plaintiff, v. Karen Henderson, Lieutenant; Laster Baker, Sergeant; Johnny Evry, Corporal; Eric Gaston, Sergeant; Anthony Tapp, Officer; Richard Anderson, Officer; Danel Glen, Sergeant; Michael Blackwell, Sergeant, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the court upon review of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett Report and Recommendation ("Report"), filed on October 3, 2016, recommending that this case be summarily dismissed because Plaintiff has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.1.) The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Id.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by October 20, 2016. (ECF No. 10.) However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (explaining that a judge may "accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part [a] [M]agistrate [Judge's] report," without explanation, when no objections are filed by the challenging party). Rather, "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.'" 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain any clear error. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) and this case is DISMISSED, without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, because the Plaintiff has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
United States District Judge
October 31, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina