Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 54]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina and deny the two pending motions to dismiss as moot. The Magistrate Judge makes only a r
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 54]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina and deny the two pending motions to dismiss as moot. The Magistrate Judge makes only a re..
More
ORDER
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 54]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina and deny the two pending motions to dismiss as moot.
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 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).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 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 committee's note)).
Having reviewed the record for clear error, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 54] except for pages 7, 8, and 9, which discuss law that is potentially incorrect2 and is unnecessary for the Court's decision to transfer this case. The Court hereby TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 37 & 44] filed by Defendants Gordon and United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
