From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Downing v. Eckstrom

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Jan 17, 2024
Civil Action 3:23-cv-6189-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 3:23-cv-6189-CMC

01-17-2024

Tanawah M. Downing, Plaintiff, v. Alexander Carl Eckstom, in his official capacity, and Diana Nicole Ruff, in her official capacity, Defendants.


ORDER

CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Complaint. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings. On December 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending Plaintiff's Complaint be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. ECF No. 6. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.”) (citation omitted).

After considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report's recommendation the matter should be transferred. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This matter, including the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is hereby transferred to the Eastern District of Washington.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Downing v. Eckstrom

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Jan 17, 2024
Civil Action 3:23-cv-6189-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2024)
Case details for

Downing v. Eckstrom

Case Details

Full title:Tanawah M. Downing, Plaintiff, v. Alexander Carl Eckstom, in his official…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 3:23-cv-6189-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2024)