Opinion
Civil Action No. 6:05-3378-HFF-BHH.
December 29, 2005
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a pro se action. The matter is before the Court for review of the report and recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge in which she recommends that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. The Report is 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. 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 her Report on December 5, 2005, 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 this case 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 the case must be, and hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance or service of process.
The Court notes that, in another case filed by Plaintiff, he appears to move the Court to recuse itself from consideration of that matter. Macon v. State of S.C., C.A. No. 6:05-3330-HFF-BHH, slip op. at 2 (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2005). To the extent that Plaintiff meant for that request to include this matter as well, for the reasons set forth in the Court's December 29, 2005, Order in Macon v. State of S.C., Plaintiff's request is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.