From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. S.C. Dept. of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Feb 28, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-03251-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-03251-MGL

02-28-2019

TERRANCE ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

This case was filed as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The Report was 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. Mathews 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 recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 6, 2019, ECF No. 22, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. "[I]n 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.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). 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 standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 28th day of February, 2019, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis

MARY GEIGER LEWIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Rogers v. S.C. Dept. of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Feb 28, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-03251-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2019)
Case details for

Rogers v. S.C. Dept. of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:TERRANCE ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 28, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-03251-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2019)