From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singletary v. Hoye

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Apr 4, 2024
Civil Action 6:23-06450-MGL (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 6:23-06450-MGL

04-04-2024

DOUGLAS SINGLETARY, Plaintiff, v. T.J. HOYE, MAJ. BROWN, CAPTAIN PATTON, and UNKNOWN FIRST LIEUTENANT, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND, AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Douglas Singletary (Singletary) filed this action against Defendants T.J. Hoye, Maj. Brown, Captain Patton, and Unknown First Lieutenant. He is representing himself.

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court dismiss this case with prejudice, without further leave to amend, 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 March 5, 2024. To date, Singletary has 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 under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this case is summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without further leave to amend, 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

Singletary v. Hoye

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Apr 4, 2024
Civil Action 6:23-06450-MGL (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2024)
Case details for

Singletary v. Hoye

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS SINGLETARY, Plaintiff, v. T.J. HOYE, MAJ. BROWN, CAPTAIN PATTON…

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

Date published: Apr 4, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 6:23-06450-MGL (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2024)