United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
March 11, 2015
John Goodwin, Plaintiff,
South Carolina State University; Small Business Development Centers; Michelle Abraham; Barbara Adams; and Dolline Tucker, Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge.
This employment matter is now before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on February 19, 2015, recommending this case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as none of the parties to the case filed a motion for substitution within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death of John Goodwin, the plaintiff in this matter. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this pretrial employment discrimination matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for consideration. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the Court incorporates such without a recitation.
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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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). No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired.
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.