Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00503-JMC
03-30-2016
David Lee Johnson, Plaintiff, v. All agents involved in the January 29, 2012 manhunt of David L. Johnson, for the agencies of: North Augusta Public Safety; SWAT; Aiken Co. Sheriff; SC State Troopers; and Aiken Co. Blood Hound Team; George McElveen III; in his official and individual capacities; J Strom Thurmond, Jr., Solicitor, in his official and individual capacities; John Nelson, Investigator, in his official and individual capacities; Jane Doe, Nurse, Aiken Co. Dent. Center, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 29), filed on July 6, 2015, recommending that Plaintiff's action (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice. The Report 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 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, and 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 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 an objection to the Report "within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation," or by July 23, 2015. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff filed no objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, 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 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's action (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED
/s/
United States District Judge March 30, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina