From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beam v. Wiygul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Jun 4, 2014
Civil Action No. 7:14-888-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 4, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:14-888-TMC

06-04-2014

Melvin Beam, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth P. Wiygul, James G. Bogle, Jr., Jim Bogle, and David Taylor, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action alleging a violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 11). Although advised of his right to do so, Plaintiff has not objected to the Report.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. 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).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 11) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge
June 4, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Beam v. Wiygul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Jun 4, 2014
Civil Action No. 7:14-888-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 4, 2014)
Case details for

Beam v. Wiygul

Case Details

Full title:Melvin Beam, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth P. Wiygul, James G. Bogle, Jr., Jim…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION

Date published: Jun 4, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:14-888-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 4, 2014)