United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
United States of America, ex rel. Erica Poston, Plaintiff,
Lower Florence County Hospital District, d/b/a Lake City Community Hospital; and Global Healthcare and Rehab, Inc., Defendants.
BRYAN HARWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.). See ECF No. 54. The Magistrate Judge
recommends (1) summarily dismissing the qui tam portion of
Relator's claims because she is pro se and has not
procured counsel after being given an opportunity to do so,
(2) allowing the claim for retaliatory discharge under 31
U.S.C. § 3730(h) to continue because it can be pursued
pro se. Id.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation 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). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for
doing so has expired. In the absence of objections to the R
& R, the Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir.
1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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
thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds
no clear error and therefore ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 54]. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES the qui tam claims
without prejudice. The claim for retaliatory
discharge under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) will continue, and
the Clerk shall terminate the United States as a party and
amend the docket to reflect that Erica Poston is the sole
IS SO ORDERED.
 See Bond v. Hughes, 671
Fed.Appx. 228, 229 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[A] pro se
litigant may not pursue a qui tam action on behalf of the
Government under the [False Claims Act].”).
 See United States ex rel. Brooks
v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 237 Fed.Appx. 802, 803 (4th
Cir. 2007) (“With regard to [a] claim of retaliatory
discharge under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), such a claim may be
brought pro se, because it is not a claim on behalf of the
 Plaintiff's objections were due by
January 28, 2019. See ECF Nos. 54 & 55.
See Graham Cty. Soil & Water
Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409,
418 (2005) (“‘[A]ny action brought under section
3730' is limited to § 3730(a) actions brought by the
United States and § 3730(b) actions in which the United
States intervenes as a party, as those are the types of
§ 3730 actions in which the United States necessarily
participates.”); Mann v. Heckler & Koch Def.,
Inc., 630 F.3d 338, 348-49 (4th Cir. 2010)
(“Congress certainly did not intend for the United
States to have to prove the elements of a § 3730(h)
retaliation cause of action in which it could not even
participate.” (emphasis added) (citing Graham
Cty., 545 U.S. at 417-18)), superseded by statute on
other grounds as explained in United States ex rel. Grant v.
United Airlines Inc., 912 F.3d 190, 200-01 (4th Cir.
2018); United States ex rel. Cody v. ManTech Int'l,
Corp., 746 Fed.Appx. 166, 176 (4th Cir. 2018)
(explaining that “through § 3730(h), Congress
created a cause of action for employees who suffer
retaliation” (internal quotation marks and brackets