Jarvis Kenta Tims v. York County Detention Center ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Jarvis Kenta Tims, ) Case No. 8:22-cv-01478-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) York County Detention Center, Chief ) John Hicks, Captain Rodney Hope, ) Nurse Lynn Bell, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) BACKGROUND This matter is before the Court upon allegations of violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights 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.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On June 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued an order informing Plaintiff that this action was subject to summary dismissal. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff was told that he could attempt to cure the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of his claims. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and the time to do so has lapsed. On July 7, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 20. 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 not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 will review 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)). CONCLUSION As stated above, Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report. Accordingly, after considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the Report. This action is DISMISSED without further leave to amend, with prejudice, and without issuance of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge August 31, 2022 Spartanburg, South Carolina