From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foxworth v. Major

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenwood Division
Feb 17, 2009
C/A No. 8:08-2795-CMC-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009)

Summary

concluding that "the Marshal's inability to effect formal service upon [certain defendants] was, so to speak, rendered 'moot' by the general appearance by their counsel"

Summary of this case from Doe v. United States

Opinion

C/A No. 8:08-2795-CMC-BHH.

February 17, 2009


ORDER


This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On January 13, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendant Jimmy Lacosta be dismissed from this matter without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to serve him with process in this matter. 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 filed no objections and the time for doing 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 reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. Defendant Jimmy Lacosta is dismissed from this matter without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Foxworth v. Major

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenwood Division
Feb 17, 2009
C/A No. 8:08-2795-CMC-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009)

concluding that "the Marshal's inability to effect formal service upon [certain defendants] was, so to speak, rendered 'moot' by the general appearance by their counsel"

Summary of this case from Doe v. United States
Case details for

Foxworth v. Major

Case Details

Full title:Shane Edward Foxworth, # 200737, Plaintiff, v. Simon Major, Jr., Director…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 2009

Citations

C/A No. 8:08-2795-CMC-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009)

Citing Cases

Doe v. United States

The Court, however, declines to direct service again because the Government has already entered an appearance…