Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2015
Summary: OPINION & ORDER HENRY M. HERLONG, Jr. , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mat
Summary: OPINION & ORDER HENRY M. HERLONG, Jr. , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Math..
More
OPINION & ORDER
HENRY M. HERLONG, Jr., Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 Report and Recommendation 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) (2006).
The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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 thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss, docket numbers 12, 17, 22 and 28, are granted and Defendants State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, Philpot Law Firm, PA, Steadman Hawkins Clinic of the Carolinas, Wilson Jones Carter and Baxley, PA, Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., Stephen R. Bruner, Irvin H. Philpot, III, Curtis Elliot, and Wesley J. Shull, are dismissed from this case, with the case proceeding at this time solely on the retaliation cause of action alleged against Defendants TC Unlimited, Inc. and Tim Case. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, docket number 67, is denied as futile.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
