From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffman v. Am. Express Co.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Mar 25, 2022
2:20-cv-03904-SAL (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-03904-SAL

03-25-2022

Chandel Richard Hoffman, Plaintiff, v. American Express Company, Defendant.


ORDER

Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge

This matter is before the court for review of the January 14, 2022 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 31.] In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for Plaintiff's failure to timely serve the only remaining Defendant. Id. at 2. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has not filed 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 31, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. As a result, this action DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hoffman v. Am. Express Co.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Mar 25, 2022
2:20-cv-03904-SAL (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2022)
Case details for

Hoffman v. Am. Express Co.

Case Details

Full title:Chandel Richard Hoffman, Plaintiff, v. American Express Company, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 25, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-03904-SAL (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2022)