United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Greenville Division
Timothy M. Cain United States District Court Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 28) and Defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) be granted, and this action be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 31). Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion stating they did not object to his request to voluntarily dismiss the action. (ECF No. 29).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 31) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) and to dismiss (ECF No. 24) are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal ...