From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Barbier

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Apr 12, 2006
Civil Action No. 3:04-810-HFF-JRM, 3:04-815-HFF-JRM, 3:04-820-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:04-810-HFF-JRM, 3:04-815-HFF-JRM, 3:04-820-HFF-JRM.

April 12, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING CASES


These cases, filed separately but consolidated into one Report and Recommendation (Report), appear to be civil rights actions brought by Plaintiff pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. This matter is before the Court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Report) recommending that the cases be dismissed and that a strike be entered for each case. The Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) 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. Matthews 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 may recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 25, 2004, and Plaintiff failed to file 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 these cases pursuant to the standards set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that these cases be, and the same are hereby, DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that each of these cases be deemed a strike (thus, a total of three strikes are to be entered) for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

King v. Barbier

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Apr 12, 2006
Civil Action No. 3:04-810-HFF-JRM, 3:04-815-HFF-JRM, 3:04-820-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2006)
Case details for

King v. Barbier

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD TONY EDDY KING, a/k/a LEONARD TONY EDDY a/k/a KING SOUTH C. SLAVE…

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:04-810-HFF-JRM, 3:04-815-HFF-JRM, 3:04-820-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2006)