Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-04332-JMC
06-22-2016
Howard Jackson, Plaintiff, v. Richland County; and Samuel J. Selph, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and state law. This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 24), filed on February 24, 2016, recommending that Defendant Richland County's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) Plaintiff's claims against it be granted, and that Defendant Richland County's Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 20) be terminated as moot. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil 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 Matthews 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 objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file an objection to the Report by March 14, 2016. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed no objections. In the absence of an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant matter. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 24.) It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Richland County's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) be GRANTED, and that Defendant Richland County's Motion for a Protective Order (ECF. 20) be TERMINATED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
United States District Judge June 22, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina