Sweat v. Roberts ( 2022 )

DISTRICT OF SO UTH CAROLINA Jeremy Shay Sweat, #326997, ) Civil Action No. 2:22-09-BHH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Beulah G. Roberts and Office of Clarendon ) County Clerk of Court, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. On October 18, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report recommending that that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and without further leave to amend or bring this case into proper form. (ECF No. 15.) 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on November 4, 2022. (See ECF No. 15 at 9 (noting objections were due by November 1, 2022, with an Magistrate Judge’s Report, this Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s action is subject to summary dismissal for failure to comply with an order of this Court pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be dismissed. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge December 8, 2022 Charleston, South Carolina ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.