From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kelley v. City of Hartsville

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Apr 16, 2013
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00174-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00174-RBH

04-16-2013

Melanie Kelley, Plaintiff, v. City of Hartsville, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff Melanie Kelley, proceeding pro se, filed this action, apparently seeking a jury trial in her many previous actions filed with the Court. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without service of process for failing to state a proper claim.

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 Mathews 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 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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' ") (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. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
April 16, 2013


Summaries of

Kelley v. City of Hartsville

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Apr 16, 2013
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00174-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2013)
Case details for

Kelley v. City of Hartsville

Case Details

Full title:Melanie Kelley, Plaintiff, v. City of Hartsville, Defendant.

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00174-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2013)