Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Hallorday

United States District Court, District of South Carolina

February 19, 2015

Mike Davis, Plaintiff,
v.
George Hallorday, recle maniger; Candy and all stef of sangetions of arria of Mental Health of Clonmia; and Arria of Men and the Cannie, Defendants.

ORDER AND OPINION

Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge

Plaintiff Mike Davis (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action against the above-named Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because Plaintiff failed to show any basis for the Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.") (citation omitted).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on January 29, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) No objections have been filed and the time for doing so expired on February 17, 2015. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir.1985).

After a thorough review of the record in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.