From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Mueller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Sep 20, 2013
Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-01987-RBH (D.S.C. Sep. 20, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-01987-RBH

2013-09-20

Cass Franklin Smith, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Steve Mueller; Major Robert Padgett; Captain Steven Anderson; Christy Quinn, Account Officer; Maurice Queen, Account Officer, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff Cass Franklin Smith, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this action, alleging that the above-captioned Defendants failed to turn over his canteen funds. The matter is now before the Court for review after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without the issuance of service of process.

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).

Neither party has filed 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). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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' ") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
September 20, 2013


Summaries of

Smith v. Mueller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Sep 20, 2013
Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-01987-RBH (D.S.C. Sep. 20, 2013)
Case details for

Smith v. Mueller

Case Details

Full title:Cass Franklin Smith, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Steve Mueller; Major Robert…

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

Date published: Sep 20, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-01987-RBH (D.S.C. Sep. 20, 2013)

Citing Cases

Lloyd v. McMahon

Beginning with plaintiff's procedural due process claim, he is not entitled to relief because even "an…