White v. U.S.

Full title: Albert Welfort White, Jr., Petitioner, v. United States of America et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 15, 2010

C.A. No.: 6:10-cv-02169-RBH (D.S.C. Sep. 15, 2010)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 6:10-cv-02169-RBH.

September 15, 2010

ORDER

R. HARWELL, District Judge

This is a civil action filed by a federal parolee. The Office of the Clerk of Court has classified this case as a Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241 action because of the relief sought by Petitioner. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, 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 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 (4^th 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 the above-captioned case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina

September 14, 2010