From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rouse v. VitalCore Health Strategies

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
May 3, 2024
Civil Action 4:24-1756-MGL-TER (D.S.C. May. 3, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 4:24-1756-MGL-TER

05-03-2024

KENNETH ONEIL ROUSE JR., Plaintiff, v. VITALCORE HEALTH STRATEGIES, and NATILE BELL, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST ONE DEFENDANT WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Kenneth Oneil Rouse Jr. (Rouse) filed this lawsuit against the above-named Defendants. He is self represented.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant VitalCore Health Strategies be dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 April 12, 2024, but Rouse failed to file any objections. “[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.3d 310, 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 Defendant VitalCore Health Strategies is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Rouse v. VitalCore Health Strategies

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
May 3, 2024
Civil Action 4:24-1756-MGL-TER (D.S.C. May. 3, 2024)
Case details for

Rouse v. VitalCore Health Strategies

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH ONEIL ROUSE JR., Plaintiff, v. VITALCORE HEALTH STRATEGIES, and…

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

Date published: May 3, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 4:24-1756-MGL-TER (D.S.C. May. 3, 2024)