From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Wright

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Spartanburg Division
Jul 31, 2023
Civil Action 7:23-02178-MGL (D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 7:23-02178-MGL

07-31-2023

DOUGLAS ALEXANDER WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF CHUCK WRIGHT, JUDGE COLE, and SPENCER SMITH, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Douglas Alexander Wright (D. Wright) filed this action alleging defamation and a violation of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Sheriff Chuck Wright, Judge Cole, and Spencer Smith.

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 June 28, 2023. To date, D. Wright has failed to file any objections.

“[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 under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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.


Summaries of

Wright v. Wright

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Spartanburg Division
Jul 31, 2023
Civil Action 7:23-02178-MGL (D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2023)
Case details for

Wright v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS ALEXANDER WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF CHUCK WRIGHT, JUDGE COLE…

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

Date published: Jul 31, 2023

Citations

Civil Action 7:23-02178-MGL (D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2023)