Opinion
C/A No. 8:19-1512-TMC
06-27-2019
John Lewis Mills, a/k/a John L. Mills, Plaintiff, v. Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff, John Lewis Mills, a/k/a John L. Mills, a pro se state inmate, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated by Defendant Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. (ECF No. 1). On June 4, 2019, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the court summary dismiss this action with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 14). Further, the magistrate judge recommends that, because this action is frivolous and malicious, the dismissal be deemed a strike under the "three strikes rule" set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. at 8-10. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at 11. However, Plaintiff has not filed an objections, and the time to do has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal the district court's judgment based upon that recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Having reviewed the Report and, finding no clear error, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 14), and thus this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that this action is frivolous and malicious and, therefore, this dismissal is deemed a strike for purpose of the "three strike rule" of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge June 27, 2019
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within the time period set forth under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.