Young v. Spartanburg County Detention Center ( 2024 )

EE oR 8 ‘A * ae iG x nS Rorsp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION CORVIN J. YOUNG, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION 1:23-5206-MGL § SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION § CENTER, SPARTANBURG COUNTY, § SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF § CHUCK WRIGHT, ASSISTANT PUBLIC § DEFENDER BEVERLY D. JONES, U.S. § MAGISTRATE COURT JUDGE MOLLY H. § CHERRY, and ASSISTANT SOLICITOR § BRITTNEY N. HAZEL, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT LEAVE FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT Plaintiff Corvin J. Young (Young) filed this lawsuit against the above-named defendants. Young is self-represented. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending to the Court this matter be dismissed without leave for further amendment. 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 arecommendation 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 December 18, 2023, but Young 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.3d 310, 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. It is therefore the judgment of the Court this matter is DISMISSED without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 19th day of January, 2024, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Young is 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.