United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
Anthony Q. Robinson, Plaintiff,
Nikon Morgan, Defendant.
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Q. Robinson ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County, South Carolina. See Complaint, ECF No. 1-1. Defendant removed the action to this Court on March 6, 2014. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. On June 4, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. See Mot., ECF No. 29. Plaintiff timely filed a response to Defendant's motion on June 18, 2014. See Pl.'s Resp., ECF No. 33. Defendant then filed a reply in support of the motion on June 30, 2014. See Reply, ECF No. 34. The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") 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. See R & R, ECF No. 37. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See id. at 5.
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).
No 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 Defendant's motion for summary ...