From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sprouse v. Sanford

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 22, 2008
C.A. No.: 0:04-22477-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22479-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22480-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22481-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22482-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22483-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22484-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22485-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22486-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2008)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 0:04-22477-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22479-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22480-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22481-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22482-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22483-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22484-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22485-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22486-RBH.

January 22, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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 and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommen dation 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 and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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 Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Marchant's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment are hereby DENIED, and defendants' motions for summary judgment are hereby GRANTED, and these cases are hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sprouse v. Sanford

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 22, 2008
C.A. No.: 0:04-22477-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22479-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22480-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22481-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22482-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22483-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22484-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22485-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22486-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2008)
Case details for

Sprouse v. Sanford

Case Details

Full title:James Walter Sprouse, Jr, #120093, Plaintiff, v. Marshall C. Sanford…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 2008

Citations

C.A. No.: 0:04-22477-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22479-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22480-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22481-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22482-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22483-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22484-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22485-RBH, C.A. No.: 0:04-22486-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2008)

Citing Cases

Sanders v. S.C. Dept

We also find the circuit court properly affirmed the AL J's finding that the notice provided of the change in…

Masada v. Sanford

Other courts in this district have also upheld the Act and the requirement that a DNA sample be provided by…