From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. South Carolina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Aug 22, 2013
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-01733-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-01733-RBH

08-22-2013

Anthony Q. Robinson, Plaintiff, v. State of South Carolina; and Gwenn J. Hyatt, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Q. Robinson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

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 recommendation. 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 Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 22, 2013


Summaries of

Robinson v. South Carolina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Aug 22, 2013
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-01733-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2013)
Case details for

Robinson v. South Carolina

Case Details

Full title:Anthony Q. Robinson, Plaintiff, v. State of South Carolina; and Gwenn J…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 22, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-01733-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2013)

Citing Cases

Cole v. White

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Robinson v. South Carolina, No. 4:13-cv-01733-RBH, *3, 2013 WL 4505419 (D.S.C. Aug. 22,…