Opinion
C.A. No. 6:06-109-HMH-WMC.
November 7, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, 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 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (West Supp. 2006).
The Defendant filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Catoe's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' motions to dismiss Defendant's counterclaims for lack of jurisdiction (document number 41) and for judgment on the pleadings (document number 46) are granted. The parties' remaining motions related to the appeal will be held in abeyance pending the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's ruling on the Plaintiffs' appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.