Opinion
3:24-cv-00039-JDA
03-14-2024
Tinika Se'Cal Warren, Plaintiff, v. Maurice Handy; Regina Montgromery; Lynn Allen; Caseworkers, Transitions Homeless Shelter; S.C. Housing; Columbia Housing Authority; HUD, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Jacquelyn D. Austin, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on an Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Tinika Se'Cal Warren (“Plaintiff”) [Doc. 18] and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 24]. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings.
On February 8, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without the issuance and service of process and that Plaintiff's pending motion be denied. [Doc. 24.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to so. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process and Plaintiff's motion to get relief from retaliation and to satisfy this claim [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.