Source: https://casetext.com/case/reynolds-v-assistant-solicitor-tyler-b-brown-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:17:26+00:00

Document:
NATHANIEL L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, v. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR TYLER B. BROWN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR KIMBERLY V. BARR, and HEAD SOLICITOR EARNEST A. FINNEY, III, Defendants.
This case was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on August 6, 2015, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections. "[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.
Signed this 31st day of August, 2015, in Columbia, South Carolina.
Plaintiff is hereby notified of 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.

References: v. 
 V. 
 § 1983
 § 636
 v. 
 v.