Logan v. United States Congress ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Jack Logan, ) ) C/A No. 6:19-cv-2182-TMC Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) United States Congress, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Plaintiff Jack Logan, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On August 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the instant action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 13).1 Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at 4. Plaintiff, however, has not filed any objections, and the time to do has now run. The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270- 71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 1In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge. (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 13) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge September 10, 2019 Anderson, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2