Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:07-465-HFF-BHH.
July 25, 2007
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the case be dismissed, without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process. The Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 19, 2007, and the Clerk entered Plaintiff's Reply on March 29, 2007.
Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff's Reply to the Report merely informs the Court that he will pursue any claims against Defendants Barfield and Lovice in state court. Accordingly, the Court now adopts the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that in the absence of objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that this case be DISMISSED, without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process.