Opinion
Civil Action No.: 4:11-cv-02759-RBH
05-24-2013
Robert Henry Hawke, Plaintiff, v. Kristopher Bullard-Wolf, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Henry Hawke, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights as a result of his arrest and prosecution. Defendant Kristopher Bullard-Wolf filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, 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 recommends that the Court grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims and decline jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff's complaint.
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 (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).
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 Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) be GRANTED as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims. Any remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 24, 2013