Coleman v. Herring

Full title: Janice Graves Coleman, Plaintiff, v. Rhiannon Gerrald Herring, Mark…

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

Date published: Jan 20, 2010

C.A. No.: 4:09-cv-03248-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 20, 2010)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 4:09-cv-03248-RBH.

January 20, 2010

ORDER

R. HARWELL, District Judge

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, 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 (4^th 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.¹ Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted as modified and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is

1 The court notes that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly states in his Report that the plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $10,000. Report [Docket Entry 11] at 2. However, this appears to be nothing more than a clerical error, as the Complaint reflects that the plaintiff is actually seeking $10,000,000 in damages.

ORDERED that this case is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.