Matheny v. Fields

Full title: Larry Dolphus Matheny, Plaintiff, v. Captain Tyrone Fields, in his…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 2010

C.A. No.: 4:09-cv-00644-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 2010)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 4:09-cv-00644-RBH.

March 4, 2010

ORDER

R. HARWELL, District Judge

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 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 (4^th 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 is dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 41(b). Alternatively, the motion filed by Defendants [Docket Entry 52] for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Docket Entry 26] is denied, and Defendants' previous motion for summary judgment [Docket Entry 33] and motion to dismiss [Docket Entry 45] are deemed moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.