From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Surdak v. Black

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jun 8, 2017
Civil Action No. 0:17-796-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 8, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 0:17-796-TMC

06-08-2017

Donald Robert Surdak, also known as Donald R. Surdak, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Gerald Black; Tilie Kilgore; Chad McBride; Gary M. Bryant; and Arlette Jones, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 11 at 5). The Report was mailed to the Plaintiff at his last known address on May 16, 2017. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. 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).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 11) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order to the Plaintiff at his last known address provided to the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain

Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge June 8, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Surdak v. Black

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jun 8, 2017
Civil Action No. 0:17-796-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 8, 2017)
Case details for

Surdak v. Black

Case Details

Full title:Donald Robert Surdak, also known as Donald R. Surdak, Jr., Plaintiff, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION

Date published: Jun 8, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 0:17-796-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 8, 2017)