Opinion
Civil Action No. 9:19-cv-01935-MGL
02-13-2020
JARODE JERMAINE WITHERSPOON, Plaintiff, v. MS. HARLEY, Classification, LT. T. WOODS, SGT. BIG WILL, and GOVERNOR MCMASTER, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Jarode Jermaine Witherspoon (Witherspoon), proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Witherspoon's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The Report was 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 November 20, 2019. On that same date, the Clerk mailed a copy of the Report to Witherspoon. On December 9, 2019, however, the Post Office returned Witherspoon's copy of the Report to the Clerk marked: "Released" and RETURN TO SENDER[.]"
The Magistrate Judge informed Witherspoon in an August 20, 2019, Proper Form Order to keep the Court apprised of his current address; and his failure to abide by the Order might result in the dismissal of his case. Witherspoon evidently failed to follow the dictates of the Order.
Witherspoon has neglected to file any objections to the Report. "[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
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 the Court Witherspoon's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. As such, any pending motions are RENDERED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 13th day of February 2020 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.