# Brown v. Washington

> District Court, D. South Carolina · April 15, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10425774

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** April 15, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10425774

## Opinion text

DISTRICT OF SO UTH CAROLINA

Michael Brown,
)

)
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:21-37-BHH
)

)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Nadine Washington; Andrew Washington;
)
Ebony Brown; April Brown; Andrew Brown,
)
Jr.; Rodney Parker; Jennifer Prioleau,
)

)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________
)

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, which was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South
Carolina. On March 22, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report recommending
that this case be dismissed without issuance and service of process for lack of
jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, and for failure to bring the case into proper form
after being instructed and given an opportunity to do so. (ECF No. 18.)
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made.
(See ECF No. 18 at 10.) In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report,
this Court is not required to provide an explanation for 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).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are
subject to summary dismissal for the reasons stated in the Report. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

April 15, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10425774. Public record. Not legal advice.