From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Oct 28, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-70-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-70-HFF-JRM.

October 28, 2010


ORDER


This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 18) be denied, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) be granted, and any remaining state claims be dismissed without prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 5, 2010, but neither party filed any objections to the Report. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report to the extent that it does not contradict this Order and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that (1) Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 18) is DENIED, (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED concerning Plaintiff's federal claims, as set forth in the Report, (3) Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and (3) Plaintiff's state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice so that he can file them in state court if he wishes to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 28th day of October, 2010, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Oct 28, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-70-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010)
Case details for

Johnson v. Padula

Case Details

Full title:DARICK ALBERT JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Mr. A.J. PADULA, SCDC, et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 28, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-70-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010)