Opinion
1:20-01972-SAL
12-16-2021
Walter Glass, Plaintiff, v. Jasmine Hill, Tyatta Davis, and Wali Khan, Defendants.
ORDER
Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge
This matter is before the court for review of the November 10, 2021 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of United States Magistrate Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 98.] In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the district court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 84, and deny Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 75, 88. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and 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 only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 98, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 84, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 75, 88, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.