Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/4:2018cv00129/240626/21
Timestamp: 2018-07-20 12:53:03
Document Index: 286284291

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2000', '§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 2000', '§ 1983']

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judges R & R for Davis v. Gause et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit South Carolina South Carolina District Court Davis v. Gause et al Filing 21
Davis v. Gause et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judges R & R (ECF No. 16 ). Accordingly, the Court PARTIALLY DISMISSES Plaintiff' ;s complaint without prejudice; specifically, the Court summarily dismisses any claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) and42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 03/06/2018. (dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION James Davis, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Carol Gause and John Gause, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) Civil Action No.: 4:18-cv-00129-RBH-TER ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). See ECF No. 16. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court partially summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s pro se complaint without prejudice. Id. at p. 5. 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & 1 Plaintiff’s objections were due by March 5, 2018. See ECF Nos. 16 & 17. Plaintiff filed two letters on March 1, 2018, see ECF No. 20, but these letters contain no specific objections to the R & R. Acc. 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 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)). After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 16]. Accordingly, the Court PARTIALLY DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice; specifically, the Court summarily dismisses any claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Florence, South Carolina March 6, 2018 s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge 2 The Magistrate Judge allowed Plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to proceed, and entered an order authorizing issuance and service of process on Defendants solely on claims under the FLSA. See R & R at p. 5; ECF No. 15. 2