From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Capers v. Hernandez

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Mar 29, 2024
Civil Action 9:23-cv-6821-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 9:23-cv-6821-BHH

03-29-2024

Paul Capers, Plaintiff, v. Christina M. Hernandez; Hampton County Sheriff's Office; Jason Loy; and Vital Core Health Strategies, Defendants.


ORDER

Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Paul Capers' (“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 preliminary review.

On February 9, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action as to Defendants Christina M. Hernandez, Hampton County Sheriff's Office, and Vital Core Health Strategies without further leave to amend. (ECF No. 9 at 6-12.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge's 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 to the Report 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 have been 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 analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 9) and dismisses Defendants Christina M. Hernandez, Hampton County Sheriff's Office, and Vital Core Health Strategies from this action without further leave to amend. At this time, the action remains pending as to Defendant Jason Loy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Capers v. Hernandez

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Mar 29, 2024
Civil Action 9:23-cv-6821-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2024)
Case details for

Capers v. Hernandez

Case Details

Full title:Paul Capers, Plaintiff, v. Christina M. Hernandez; Hampton County…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Mar 29, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 9:23-cv-6821-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2024)