From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cave v. Morgan

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Apr 9, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:09-56-HFF-PJG (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:09-56-HFF-PJG.

April 9, 2009


ORDER


This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the complaint in the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 a recommendation 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 March 19, 2009, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). 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. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Cave v. Morgan

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Apr 9, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:09-56-HFF-PJG (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2009)
Case details for

Cave v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT JAMES CAVE JR., Plaintiff, v. BARBARA MORGAN, Solicitor, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

Date published: Apr 9, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:09-56-HFF-PJG (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2009)

Citing Cases

Tant v. Frick

Otherwise, "the Solicitor's Office consists of buildings, facilities, and grounds—inanimate objects that do…

Jennings v. Richardson

Given that Defendant Georgetown County Solicitor's Office is either a building or a facility, it is not…