From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SAPP v. OZMINT

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson Division
Feb 9, 2006
C.A. No. 8:05-1451-HMH-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2006)

Opinion

C.A. No. 8:05-1451-HMH-BHH.

February 9, 2006


OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local 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 to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hendricks' Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

SAPP v. OZMINT

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson Division
Feb 9, 2006
C.A. No. 8:05-1451-HMH-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2006)
Case details for

SAPP v. OZMINT

Case Details

Full title:Davis Neal Sapp, Plaintiff, v. Jonathan Ozmint, Director, South Carolina…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson Division

Date published: Feb 9, 2006

Citations

C.A. No. 8:05-1451-HMH-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2006)