From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holmes v. Whitney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jun 26, 2014
Civil Action No. 9:14-1190-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 26, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 9:14-1190-TMC

06-26-2014

George Holmes, Plaintiff, v. Rebecca Whitney, W0901, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 19.) Although advised of his right to do so, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so as now run.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (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 and, therefore, adopts the Report (ECF No. 19) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge
June 26, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Holmes v. Whitney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jun 26, 2014
Civil Action No. 9:14-1190-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 26, 2014)
Case details for

Holmes v. Whitney

Case Details

Full title:George Holmes, Plaintiff, v. Rebecca Whitney, W0901, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION

Date published: Jun 26, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 9:14-1190-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 26, 2014)

Citing Cases

Dudley v. Foote

A person cannot be barred by an unsealed instrument by way of estoppel of his right to real estate, but by…