Cabbil v. The United States of America, No. 1:2016cv00462 - Document 36 (D.S.C. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 31 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/16/16. (asni, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cabbil v. The United States of America Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Matthew Cabbil, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) The United States of America, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00462-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court upon review of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on May 10, 2016, recommending that the case be dismissed, without service of process and without requiring the Defendant to file a return. (ECF No. 31.) The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates 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(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Id. The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by May 27, 2016. (ECF No. 31.) However, neither party filed any objections to the Report. 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) (explaining that a judge may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part [a] 1 Dockets.Justia.com [M]agistrate [Judge’s] report,” without explanation, when no objections are filed by the challenging party). 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). 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 and does not contain any clear error. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31) and this case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge September 16, 2016 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.
