Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Benjamin v. Chavis, 4:18-cv-2894-MGL-TER. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20191024d70 Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) MARY GEIGER LEWIS , District Judge . Plaintiff Gregory Benjamin (Benjamin) filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendants Tony Chavis and John Spec (collectively, Defendants). He 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 this case be dismissed under Fed
More

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)

Plaintiff Gregory Benjamin (Benjamin) filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Tony Chavis and John Spec (collectively, Defendants). He 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 this case be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 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. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on September 30, 2019, but Benjamin failed to file any objections. "[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. 1985).

After a 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 this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). As such, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are necessarily RENDERED MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Benjamin is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer