Fowler v. Spartanburg Regional Medical Center

Full title: John A. Fowler, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Spartanburg Regional Medical Center…

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

Date published: Jul 21, 2010

C.A. No.: 7:09-cv-01104-RBH (D.S.C. Jul. 21, 2010)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 7:09-cv-01104-RBH.

July 21, 2010

ORDER

R. HARWELL, District Judge

This matter concerns Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure by the pro se plaintiff to participate in discovery. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks, 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.¹ 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).

1 The Court notes that the Report does not address Defendant's request for an award of reasonable expenses. However, Defendant has not objected to the Report and therefore the Court adopts the Report as written.

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 defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.