From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Dec 22, 2006
C/A No. 0:06-2590-CMC-BM (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 2006)

Opinion

C/A No. 0:06-2590-CMC-BM.

December 22, 2006


OPINION AND ORDER


In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC, the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, who issued a Report and Recommendation on November 13, 2006.

This court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in 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.'") (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Based on his review of the record, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. No objections have been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

After reviewing the Complaint and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance or service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Dec 22, 2006
C/A No. 0:06-2590-CMC-BM (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 2006)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:Rickey B. Williams, Plaintiff, v. State of South Carolina; and Third…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Dec 22, 2006

Citations

C/A No. 0:06-2590-CMC-BM (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 2006)

Citing Cases

Olszowy v. Schmutz

Further, the Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office is an integral part of the State of South Carolina and…

McLaughlin v. Darlington Cnty.

The challenged news story and article only stated Plaintiff arrested and neither publication gave the…