Salmeri v. Jones III, No. 1:2021cv01507 - Document 15 (D.S.C. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER adopting the 12 Report and Recommendation and summarily dismissing this action. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/28/2021. (lbak)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Salmeri v. Jones III 1:21-cv-01507-BHH Date Filed 07/28/21 Entry Number 15 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Aron Salmeri, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Deputy Jones, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ Civil Action No. 1:21-1507-BHH OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. On June 7, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report recommending that this case be summarily dismissed as Plaintiff has failed to state a constitutional claim against Defendant. (ECF No. 12.) 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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on June 24, 2021. (See ECF No. 12 (noting objections were due by June 21, 2021, with an additional three days to be added if served by mail).) In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1:21-cv-01507-BHH Date Filed 07/28/21 Entry Number 15 Page 2 of 2 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). Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are subject to summary dismissal for the reasons stated in the Report. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is summarily DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge July 28, 2021 Charleston, South Carolina ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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.
