Opinion
C.A. No.: 4:11-cv-02759-RBH-KDW
03-26-2012
Robert Henry Hawke, Plaintiff, v. State of South Carolina; Nancy Livesay, Assistant Solicitor; Steven H. John, Administrative - Resident Judge; City of Myrtle Beach; Kristopher Bullard-Wolf; Horry County 15th Judicial Circuit Court; Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is 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 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).
Plaintiff did file a Letter, [Docket Entry 30], after the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation. However, upon review, not only was the Letter filed outside of the time period for filing objections, but nowhere in the Letter does Plaintiff even object to the Magistrate Judge's Report.
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 all of the Defendants on the docket, except Defendant Bullard-Wolf, are hereby dismissed as parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
March 26, 2012