From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Spartanburg Cnty. Det. Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Oct 19, 2012
Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-01293-JMC (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-01293-JMC

10-19-2012

Todd Michael Taylor, Plaintiff, v. Spartanburg County Detention Facility; Major Neal Urch; Corporal Tahara; Dr. Branco, Med. Dept., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), [Dkt. No. 9], filed on May 23, 2012, recommending that the Spartanburg County Detention Facility be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without service of process from the above listed case. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 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 to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 9 at 4]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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.'" 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 9]. It is therefore ORDERED that the Spartanburg County Detention Facility is SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process from the above listed case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
October 19, 2012


Summaries of

Taylor v. Spartanburg Cnty. Det. Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Oct 19, 2012
Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-01293-JMC (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Taylor v. Spartanburg Cnty. Det. Facility

Case Details

Full title:Todd Michael Taylor, Plaintiff, v. Spartanburg County Detention Facility…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-01293-JMC (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 2012)