Coleman v. Shirley ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. William T. Coleman, a/k/a C/A No. 3:21-cv-1516-JFA-SVH Rappergreens, a/k/a William Theoplas Coleman, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Officer D. Dechman; Officer Shirley; Officer Brandon McLaurin; Magistrate Court Judge Rebecca Adams; and Lexington County Solicitor Whitney K. Yongue, Defendants. William T. Coleman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action seeking monetary damages 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.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. The court issued a scheduling order and the Clerk of Court mailed a copy to Plaintiff’s address of record provided with the complaint. (ECF No. 34). The mail was returned as undeliverable and then re-mailed, where it was again returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 36-38). The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 39). Within the Report, the Magistrate 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). Judge Opines that the case should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on September 17, 2021. (ECF No. 39). The Magistrate Judge required objections to be filed by October 1, 2021. Id. No party filed objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Here, each party has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Plaintiff’s motion should be construed as a request for voluntary dismissal and subsequently granted. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 39). Consequently, this matter is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). Given this dismissal all other pending motions are now moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 13, 2021 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge