Opinion
C.A. No. 3:06-1425-TLW-JRM.
March 14, 2007
ORDER
This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In his Report, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends that defendant Dr. Gordineer's motion for summary judgment be granted; the motion for summary judgment of defendants Middleton, Rooney, and Walker be granted; and defendant Hudson's motion to dismiss be granted. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. No objections have been filed to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
A review of the record indicates that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 60), and defendant Dr. Gordineer's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. # 20); the motion for summary judgment of defendants Middleton, Rooney, and Walker is GRANTED (Doc. # 39); and defendant Hudson's motion to dismiss is GRANTED (Doc. # 51).
IT IS SO ORDERED.