Opinion
Civil Action No.: 7:12-cv-01713-JMC
08-19-2013
American United Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Misty Williford, Debra M. Crane, Cayce M. Tate, the Estate of Thomas R. McKinney, the Estate of Mariann Pearson Sherbert, the Estate of Shirley McKinney, and Billy McKinney, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") [Dkt. No. 60], filed on July 26, 2013, recommending that Defendant Misty Williford's ("Williford") Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Crane [Dkt. No. 53] be denied. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Williford's Motion for Hearing on Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 58] be denied. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation without a recitation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 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 objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 60, at 9]. However, no party has filed objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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.'" 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 60] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendant Misty Williford's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Crane [Dkt. No. 53] be denied and that Williford's Motion for Hearing on Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 58] also be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
August 19, 2013