From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lunn v. Broad River Corr Inst.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
Apr 30, 2024
Civil Action 5:23-6173-MGL (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:23-6173-MGL

04-30-2024

BRANDON JADE LUNN, Plaintiff, v. BROAD RIVER CORR. INSTITUTION, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Brandon Jade Lunn (Lunn) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Broad River Corr. Institution. Lunn is representing himself.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending to the Court the amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 March 28, 2024, but Lunn failed to file any objections. “[I]n 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.'” 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Lunn 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, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Lunn v. Broad River Corr Inst.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
Apr 30, 2024
Civil Action 5:23-6173-MGL (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2024)
Case details for

Lunn v. Broad River Corr Inst.

Case Details

Full title:BRANDON JADE LUNN, Plaintiff, v. BROAD RIVER CORR. INSTITUTION, Defendant.

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 5:23-6173-MGL (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2024)