Brown v. Spigner et al, No. 9:2022cv00843 - Document 44 (D.S.C. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Cherry's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 05/23/2023. (apsn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown v. Spigner et al 9:22-cv-00843-HMH Date Filed 05/23/23 Entry Number 44 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION John A. Brown, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) C/O Spigner; Warden Wallace; Unnamed ) C/O Responsible for Legal Mail Distribution; ) Unnamed Law Library Supervisor; and Miss ) Dawson, ) ) Defendants. ) C.A. No. 9:22-843-HMH-MHC OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, 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. 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) (2006). The plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 9:22-cv-00843-HMH Date Filed 05/23/23 Entry Number 44 Page 2 of 2 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Cherry’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina May 23, 2023 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to 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.
