United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge.
On February 26, 2015, the Clerk of Court entered Plaintiff Antonio Davis's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for review pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. On March 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation, (Report), recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff failed to 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. 7), and finding no clear error in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is ...