United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
January 5, 2015
MACK JAMES PAUL, JR., Plaintiff,
JOHN MELTON, Sumter Police Department's Employee and Investigating Officer in his individual and official capacity, Defendant.
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Mack James Paul, Jr. filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 21, 2013. (Doc. #1). Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on April 24, 2014 (Doc. #31), to which Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on August 20, 2014 (Doc. #44). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's federal claims and dismiss any state law claims that Plaintiff attempts to assert. (Doc. #48). Plaintiff's objections to the Report were due by December 5, 2014. Plaintiff failed to file objections, and the matter is now ripe for disposition.
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).
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #48). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal claims (Doc. #31), and any state law claims Plaintiff attempts to assert are hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.