Filyaw v. Bittlenger et al, No. 0:2015cv02894 - Document 14 (D.S.C. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/30/2015. (asni, )

Download PDF
Filyaw v. Bittlenger et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION William Fate Filyaw, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) E. Bittlenger, ) Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ) Evans Corr. Inst; Major Charles West; ) Ofc D. Fuller; Sgt. Waddell; LT Powell, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 0:15-cv-02894-JMC ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 10), filed on August 13, 2015, recommending that Plaintiff’s action, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, and 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 objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff was advised of his right to file an objection to the Report “within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by August 31, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed no objections. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge October 30, 2015 Columbia, South Carolina 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.