Chisolm v. VonDoran et al - Document 33
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Court adopts 30 Report and Recommendation, and grants 23 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Pfc Green, T A VonDoran, Heyward, Cpl Williams, Carmicheal. This case is dismissed in its entirety. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 2/19/10. (swel, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Don Survi Chisolm, Plaintiff, vs. Capt. T.A. VonDoran, Lt. Carmichael, Lt. Heyward, Cpl. Williams, PFC. Green, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No.: 4:08-cv-03242-RBH ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 Report and Recommendation 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).
At the time of filing this suit, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Dorchester County Detention Center. However, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. A review of the docket shows Plaintiff's current address as 5126 Scarsdale Drive, North Charleston, South Carolina. Additionally, the envelope containing the last document mailed by Plaintiff to the court bears this same address.
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (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. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and this case is dismissed in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina February 19, 2010