United States District Court, District of South Carolina
May 27, 2015
Mitchell Sumpter, Plaintiff,
A. Lane Crib, et al., Defendants.
Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge
Plaintiff Mitchell Sumpter, (“Plaintiff”), an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 and 25). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial handling.
On May 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, (“the Report”), (ECF No. 137), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 124). Objections to the Report were due by May 18, 2015. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 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). 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).
Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 137), and finding no clear error in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it by reference. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 124), is thereby GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.