Opinion
Civil Action 0:24-1960-CMC
07-24-2024
Barbara Latrail Jones, Plaintiff, v. Barbara Jones, Defendant.
ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on review of Plaintiffs' pro se Complaint. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
The Magistrate Judge entered a Proper Form Order on May 24, 2024, allowing Plaintiff until June 14, 2024, to bring her case into proper form by naming defendants, providing a basis for jurisdiction, and including facts sufficient to show she is entitled to relief. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to bring her case into proper form and stated “there is no controversy at this time.” ECF No. 10. On June 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) denying the motion for extension of time and recommending the Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without leave for amendment. ECF No. 11. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do 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 the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.”) (citation omitted).
After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave for amendment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.