Opinion
C/A No. 8:06-926-CMC-BHH.
April 27, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking dismissal of a Family Court proceeding in the State of South Carolina. In accordance with this court's order of reference and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), this matter comes before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks.
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
Based on her review of the record, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a return. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of her right to file objections to the Report and the possible consequences if she failed to do so. Petitioner has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.
After reviewing the Petition, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.