From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riddle v. Greenville Transit Authority

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
May 12, 2006
C.A. No. 6:05-2617-HMH-BHH (D.S.C. May. 12, 2006)

Opinion

C.A. No. 6:05-2617-HMH-BHH.

May 12, 2006


OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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).

The Plaintiff filed no 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).

After a thorough review of the Report and recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hendricks' Report and recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that Defendant McDonald Transit Associates, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is granted as to all claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Riddle v. Greenville Transit Authority

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
May 12, 2006
C.A. No. 6:05-2617-HMH-BHH (D.S.C. May. 12, 2006)
Case details for

Riddle v. Greenville Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:Jackie Riddle, Plaintiff, v. Greenville Transit Authority and McDonald…

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

Date published: May 12, 2006

Citations

C.A. No. 6:05-2617-HMH-BHH (D.S.C. May. 12, 2006)

Citing Cases

Signore v. Bank of Am., N.A.

DISYS does not dispute that this theory is appropriate under the law, but contends that it does not qualify…

Wright v. Mountain View Lawn Care, LLC

"This theory is typically used against companies who share either a parent-subsidiary or…