United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANT KINDLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RULE AND COMPEL
GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff
is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant
Kindley's Motion to Dismiss be granted and
Plaintiff's Motion to Rule and Compel Discovery be denied
as moot. Further, the Report recommends the “2 Unknown
SLED Agents” be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed
to identify or serve these individuals. The Report was made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. §
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 22, 2016, but
Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report.
“[I]n 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).
Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review.
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts
the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court that Defendant Kindley's Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED, whereas Plaintiff's Motion to Rule
and Compel Discovery is DENIED AS MOOT. Moreover, the
“2 Unknown SLED Agents” are DISMISSED because
Plaintiff has failed to identify or serve these individuals.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order
within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3