United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Florence Division
March 23, 2015
Alcides Agustin Monge, Plaintiff,
Tom Fox, Director of Horry County Sheriff’s Department, and David Robinson, Warden of J. Reuben Long Detention Center, Defendants.
R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge
Plaintiff Alcides Agustin Monge (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented prisoner, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 11, 2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff later amended his complaint on March 11, 2014. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 21. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 30. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to all Defendants. See Id. at 4. The Magistrate Judge also recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 26; ECF No. 30 at n.2.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of 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 action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to all Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.