The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Tavon Dorsett Morton, )
) C.A. No. 8:20cv3129-HMH-JDA
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) OPINION & ORDER
)
Yates Brown; Matt Blackwell; Wesley )
McClinton; Greenwood Municipal; )
Greenwood Police Department; Greenwood )
Solicitor Office; Judge Miller, Greenwood )
Municipal Judge; and Eugene C. )
Griffith, Jr., )
)
Defendants. )
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of 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 recommenda-
tion 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) (2006).
The 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
1
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the complaint is summarily dismissed without leave to amend and
without issuance and service of process. It is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 8, 2020
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has 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.
2