United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
November 21, 2014
MICHAEL JONES, a/k/a Michael L. Jones, Plaintiff,
AL CANON DETENTION CENTER, f/k/a Charleston County Detention Center; and ITS MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Doctors Name Unknown, Defendants.
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Jones, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the Al Canon Detention Center and its medical department. (Doc. #1). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the case without prejudice. (Doc. #10). Plaintiff's objections to the Report were due by November 17, 2014. Plaintiff filed no objections.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report in accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #10). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.