stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Jihad Brown, ) Case No. 5:20-cv-03524-DCC
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
United States of America, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint brought pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On October 21, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. ECF No. 8. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed
to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds that venue is improper in this District and
TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 27, 2021
Spartanburg, South Carolina
1 Because the court raised the issue of transfer of venue sua sponte, pursuant to
Feller v.Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 n.7 (4th Cir.1986), Plaintiff must be given an opportunity
to be heard before a final decision on transfer is rendered. See also Magic Toyota, Inc. v.
Southeast Toyota Distribs., Inc., 784 F. Supp. 306, 321 (D.S.C.1992); Sadighi v.
Daghighfekr, 36 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278 (D.S.C. 1999). Plaintiff’s opportunity to file timely
objections to the Report is considered to be the required opportunity to be heard under
Feller before a final decision on transfer is rendered.