Opinion
C/A No. 3:11-2512-TMC
01-10-2012
Kelvin Angelo Dunbar, Plaintiff, v. CSL Plasma; Chris Bellinder; John Doe; Paulette Bradley, Any, All Entities, Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
Kelvin Angelo Dunbar ("Plaintiff"), a pro se Plaintiff residing in a privately operated homeless shelter, filed this civil action against the Defendants using this Court's Prisoner 1983 Complaint form. The action arises out of the Plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to sell or donate his blood to a blood/plasma center. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8), filed on September 26, 2011, recommends that the Court dismiss the Complaint in the above-captioned case without prejudice and without service of process. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report herein without a recitation.
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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8 at 6). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
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 adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
January 10, 2012
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.