From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Stirling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jan 9, 2018
Civil Action No. 9:17-cv-2538-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 9, 2018)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 9:17-cv-2538-CMC

01-09-2018

Fontel Williams, Plaintiff, v. S.C.D.C. Director Bryan P. Stirling, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings. On December 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending this matter be summarily dismissed without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process. ECF No. 11. 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 did not file objections and the time for doing so has passed.

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 considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the Report's recommendation the Complaint be dismissed. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Cameron McGowan Currie

CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE

Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina
January 9, 2018


Summaries of

Williams v. Stirling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jan 9, 2018
Civil Action No. 9:17-cv-2538-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 9, 2018)
Case details for

Williams v. Stirling

Case Details

Full title:Fontel Williams, Plaintiff, v. S.C.D.C. Director Bryan P. Stirling…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 2018

Citations

Civil Action No. 9:17-cv-2538-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 9, 2018)