From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Brown

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Dec 2, 2011
Civil Action No. 3:11-318-TMC (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:11-318-TMC.

December 02, 2011.


OPINION and ORDER


Branson Jamal Thompson ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 37) filed November 8, 2011, recommending that the court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 21). The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report herein without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 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 and Recommendation 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 and Recommendation (Dkt. # 37 at 11). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 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 and Recommendation 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 adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 37) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion for Summary judgment is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Brown

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Dec 2, 2011
Civil Action No. 3:11-318-TMC (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Thompson v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THOMPSON v. BROWN

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Dec 2, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:11-318-TMC (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2011)

Citing Cases

Simpson v. Johnson

) The Magistrate Judge also determined that the same analysis is fatal to Plaintiff's claims regarding the…

Hall v. Williford

See, e.g., Kidwell v. Buchanan, 996 F.2d 1225, 1993 WL 230224, at *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table…