United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division
January 30, 2015
Bilal A. Al-Haqq, # 126806, Plaintiff,
Major Walter Worrick; Ernest Rome, DHO; Ms. V. Jones, Inmate Representative; Ms. Marilyn Smart, Grievance Coordinator; Ms. C. Smith, worker; Ms. Edith Wetherbee, DHO Rec; and Cpl. Marvin Bryant, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
Timothy M. Cain, United States District 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 the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Cpl. Marvin Bryant (ECF No. 41) be denied, and the action should continue as to Defendant Bryant in his individual capacity. (ECF No. 48). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 48 at 10). However, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant Bryant filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
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. 48) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Bryant (ECF No. 41) is DENIED, and the action shall continue as to Defendant Bryant in his individual capacity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.