Filed: Apr. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . Plaintiff Dantonio Tucker ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") issued by the Magistrate Ju
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . Plaintiff Dantonio Tucker ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") issued by the Magistrate Jud..
More
ORDER AND OPINION
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Dantonio Tucker ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 22, 2016. (ECF No. 43.) In his Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and this case be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order to provide discovery pursuant to Rule 37 and for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). (Id. at 3.) Neither party filed objections, and the time for doing so expired on April 8, 2016.
The 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 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report is incorporated herein by reference and Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
