stating that “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.’”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “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.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony Marcelle McLean, Jr., )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-575-BHH
v. )
) ORDER
Raleigh Police Department; )
Detective Brown; Lt. Batton; )
and Officer Perrin, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Anthony Marcelle McLean, Jr.’s pro se
(“Plaintiff”) complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Raleigh Police
Department and three of its officers, Detective Brown, Lt. Batton, and Officer Perrin
(collectively, “Defendants”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
preliminary review.
On February 9, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
(“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court transfer this case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for all further
proceedings. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of
the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a
copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed
the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates
the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 7), and the Court transfers this action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina so the proper
district court may evaluate Plaintiff’s claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 27, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina
2