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.’”
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.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Justin R. Mitchell, #44363, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-3878-BHH
v. )
) ORDER
Michael Brown, Lt. M. Matusiewicz, )
Sgt. C. Neal, Sgt. Moses, J. Sauls, )
Eric McDaniel, Brandy Singletary, )
Tiffany Smith, McElveen, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Justin R. Mitchell’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On July 3, 2025, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss
Defendants Brown, Matusiewicz, Neal, Moses, Sauls, and McDaniel from this action. (ECF
No. 27.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the
right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a
copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed
the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 27), and the Court dismisses Defendants Brown,
Matusiewicz, Neal, Moses, Sauls, and McDaniel. The action remains pending against
Defendants Singletary, Smith, and McElveen.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
July 24, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina
2