From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williamson v. Rogers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jun 22, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:15-4755-MGL (D.S.C. Jun. 22, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:15-4755-MGL

06-22-2017

DUSTIN ROBERT WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff, v. CLARENCE ROGERS and DEBRA EASTRIDGE, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND RENDERING AS MOOT ALL OF THE PENDING MOTIONS

Plaintiff filed this case as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on June 2, 2017, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections. "[I]n 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.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.

This decision necessarily RENDERS AS MOOT all of the pending motions to dismiss. Further, inasmuch as Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal within the time period provided by the applicable rules, his motion to extend the time for filing his notice of appeal is also RENDERED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 22nd day of June, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis

MARY GEIGER LEWIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Williamson v. Rogers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jun 22, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:15-4755-MGL (D.S.C. Jun. 22, 2017)
Case details for

Williamson v. Rogers

Case Details

Full title:DUSTIN ROBERT WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff, v. CLARENCE ROGERS and DEBRA…

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

Date published: Jun 22, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:15-4755-MGL (D.S.C. Jun. 22, 2017)