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.” (citation omitted)
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.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Beverly A. Brown, )
a/k/a Beverly A. Gilcrest, ) Case No. 8:25-cv-00495-DCC
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
J. R. Grant, Shandal Boggs, Wade )
Dowtin, Zackery T. Queen, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of her
civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Kevin F. McDonald pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On March 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that this action be dismissed without leave to amend and without issuance of service of
process. ECF No. 15. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing
to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.
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 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.” (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 Report’s
recommendation. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice,1 without leave to amend,
and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff is specifically warned that sanctions
or prefiling restrictions may be ordered if Plaintiff continues to file frivolous litigation in this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
May 20, 2025
Spartanburg, South Carolina
1 The claims dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), are
dismissed without prejudice.