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

Download this document:




9:13-cv-01987-RBH Date Filed 09/20/13 Entry Number 13 Page 1 of 2

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

BEAUFORT DIVISION



Plaintiff,

Cass Franklin Smith,



v.

Sheriff Steve Mueller; Major Robert
Padgett; Captain Steven Anderson;
Christy Quinn, Account Officer;
Maurice Queen, Account Officer,




Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-01987-RBH



ORDER

)

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


Plaintiff Cass Franklin Smith, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this action,

alleging that the above-captioned Defendants failed to turn over his canteen funds. The matter is

now before the Court for review after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the

Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without the issuance of service of process.

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).

9:13-cv-01987-RBH Date Filed 09/20/13 Entry Number 13 Page 2 of 2

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of

objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 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 reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond

v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (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).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated

by reference. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice and without

service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Florence, South Carolina
September 20, 2013


s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge



2