United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
June 22, 2015
Thomas Tosai Perkins, Plaintiff,
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation; Taralkumar Ravjibhai Sharma, M.D., Defendants.
TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Thomas Tosai Perkins, proceeding pro se, filed this action against a state agency and a doctor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1402. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff's action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 16 at 7). However, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 16) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.