From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Gardner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Mar 3, 2015
Civil Action No. 3:14-4635-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:14-4635-TMC

03-03-2015

Demetrius Alexander Brown, Plaintiff, v. Heath Gardner; John Melton; H. Austin; Ricky Morse; Lee Anna Tindal; George Roosevelt Gibson; Brownyn McElveen; Judge James, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action 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 court dismiss Plaintiff's case without prejudice. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 8 at 11). Plaintiff, however, filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.

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. 8) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain

Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge
March 3, 2015
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

Brown v. Gardner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Mar 3, 2015
Civil Action No. 3:14-4635-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 2015)
Case details for

Brown v. Gardner

Case Details

Full title:Demetrius Alexander Brown, Plaintiff, v. Heath Gardner; John Melton; H…

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

Date published: Mar 3, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:14-4635-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 2015)

Citing Cases

Myers v. Floyd

Indeed, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly construed the allegations to bring a claim for…

Lucas v. Allen

In any event, claims based on the "wrongful institution of legal process," Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384,…