From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hewitt v. SC Dept of Corrections

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 24, 2011
C.A. No. 0:09-cv-01517-JMC (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2011)

Opinion

C.A. No. 0:09-cv-01517-JMC.

January 24, 2011


ORDER


The pro se plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc.# 102], filed on October 14, 2010, recommends that defendant Bennett/Benton be dismissed, without prejudice, as a party to this action pursuant to FRCP 4(m). 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 recommendation 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 [Doc. # 102, at 4]. 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 [Doc. # 102] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Bennett/Benton be dismissed, without prejudice, as a party to this action pursuant to FRCP 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Greenville, South Carolina

January 24, 2011


Summaries of

Hewitt v. SC Dept of Corrections

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 24, 2011
C.A. No. 0:09-cv-01517-JMC (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2011)
Case details for

Hewitt v. SC Dept of Corrections

Case Details

Full title:Jeremy Allen Hewitt, Plaintiff, v. SC Dept of Corrections, Ms. Huggins…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

Date published: Jan 24, 2011

Citations

C.A. No. 0:09-cv-01517-JMC (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2011)

Citing Cases

Tart v. Kornegay

Likewise, "it has long been recognized that arms of the State are not 'persons' for purposes of § 1983."…

McMillian v. Neuse Corr. Ctr.

Likewise, "it has long been recognized that arms of the State are not 'persons' for purposes of § 1983."…