From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wells v. S.C.D.F. Employees

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Jun 21, 2011
C/A NO. 2:10-3111-CMC-BHH (D.S.C. Jun. 21, 2011)

Opinion

C/A NO. 2:10-3111-CMC-BHH.

June 21, 2011


OPINION and ORDER


This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On May 19, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants "SCDF Employees" and "SCDF Medical Staff" be dismissed from this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report and the time for doing so has expired.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.") (citation omitted).

After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.

Defendants "SCDF Employees" and "SCDF Medical Staff" are dismissed from this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. This matter is returned to the United States Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wells v. S.C.D.F. Employees

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Jun 21, 2011
C/A NO. 2:10-3111-CMC-BHH (D.S.C. Jun. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Wells v. S.C.D.F. Employees

Case Details

Full title:Ray Edward Wells, Plaintiff, v. S.C.D.F. Employees; Warden Larry W…

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

Date published: Jun 21, 2011

Citations

C/A NO. 2:10-3111-CMC-BHH (D.S.C. Jun. 21, 2011)