Opinion
C/A No. 8:19-1025-JFA-JDA
05-29-2019
Neo D. Haywood, Plaintiff, v. Olivia Owens, RN, Defendant.
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Laurens County Detention Center at the time he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendant failed to keep his medical history private.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action without prejudice because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. The Magistrate Judge also suggests that the plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of his complaint and that amendment would be futile. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on April 23, 2019 (ECF No. 9). However, the plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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 must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
A review of the docket reveals that none of the documents mailed to the plaintiff by the Clerk of Court have been returned by the U.S. Postmaster, nor has the plaintiff notified the Clerk of any address change as of the date of this order. --------
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws and the record in this case, this court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and finds that that the Report fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge May 29, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina