Opinion
Civil Action No.: 4:12-cv-2435-RBH
02-26-2014
Edward Leon Muldrow Plaintiff, v. S.C. Dep't of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; Florence County Dep't of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; Agent Kelly Bogan; Kelly Bogan's Superiors; Florence County Solicitor's Office; and David Allen Collins, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Edward Leon Muldrow ("Plaintiff") filed this action pro se, alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. On August 28, 2013, Defendants Agent Kelly Bogan and David Allen Collins ("Defendants"), the only remaining Defendants in this action, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 53. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 63. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims, and decline to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. See id. at 6.
The Court issued an Order on June 12, 2013 dismissing Defendants S.C. Dep't of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; Florence County Dep't of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services; Kelly Bogan's Superiors; and Florence County Solicitor's Office without prejudice. See Order Adopting R & R, ECF No. 47 at 2.
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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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 recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims. Any remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
February 26, 2014