Opinion
0:23-cv-04711-DCC
04-29-2024
Angel Manuel Rios-Nogueras, Plaintiff, v. Lt. DeBello, Monique, Sgt. Christopher Coons, Cpt. Sharon Branch, Defendants.
ORDER
Donald C. Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's amended complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF No. 16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 12, 2024, Defendants Branch, Coons, and DeBello (“the Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and the Moving Defendants filed a reply. ECF Nos. 46, 48. On February 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted. ECF No. 57. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.
Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file objections to the Court, which the Court granted. The deadline for filing objections was extended until March 30, 2024. ECF No. 63. Plaintiff has not filed objections or another motion for extension of time.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.” (citation omitted)).
As noted above, Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. Upon review for clear error, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The motion to dismiss [40] is GRANTED and the Moving Defendants are dismissed from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.