From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chestnut v. Benson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Jun 8, 2012
Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-01106-RBH (D.S.C. Jun. 8, 2012)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 4:12-cv-01106-RBH

06-08-2012

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Plaintiff, v. Van N. Benson; Cheryl L. Townsend, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is an inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina. Plaintiff proceeds under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging constitutional violations. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________

R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge

Florence, South Carolina

June 8, 2012


Summaries of

Chestnut v. Benson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Jun 8, 2012
Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-01106-RBH (D.S.C. Jun. 8, 2012)
Case details for

Chestnut v. Benson

Case Details

Full title:Raymond Edward Chestnut, Plaintiff, v. Van N. Benson; Cheryl L. Townsend…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 8, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-01106-RBH (D.S.C. Jun. 8, 2012)

Citing Cases

Chestnut v. Comstock

1403, 2013 WL 6199146 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 27, 2013), aff'd, 566 F. App'x 119 (3d Cir. 2014); Chestnut v. Thomas,…