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
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Michael Brown, ) Case No. 2:24-cv-06286-DCC
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
Lavern Cohen, Ridgeland Correctional )
Institution, South Carolina Dept. of )
Corrections, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his
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 Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On May 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
this action be dismissed without leave to amend, without prejudice, and without issuance
of service of process. ECF No. 11. 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 without prejudice, without leave to amend,
and without issuance and service of process. The motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [2] is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
July 11, 2025
Spartanburg, South Carolina