You're viewing Docket Item 13 from the case Chandler v. Carpenter et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




8:13-cv-01020-TMC Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Edward Terrell Chandler,

Plaintiff,

v.

Judge Brenda Carpenter, Edgefield County
Detention Center’s Judge; Officer Lamaz
Robinson, Johnston Police Department’s
Investigator,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 8:13-1020-TMC



ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin 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 objections are made, and the court

may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or

in part,

the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 10 at 8). However, 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 provide an explanation for

8:13-cv-01020-TMC Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 13 Page 2 of 2

adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory

committee’s note).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in

this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF

No. 10) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Anderson, South Carolina
June 4, 2013

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules

3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.