Hunt v. Stevenson, No. 6:2014cv02712 - Document 13 (D.S.C. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendation. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/8/2014. (mbro, ) Modified on 8/8/2014 to edit text (mbro, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Lynn Larry Hunt, #169197, a/k/a Larry Lynn Hunt, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Warden Robert Stevenson, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 6:14-2712-BHH ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiff Lynn Larry Hunt, ( Plaintiff ), an inmate at the Murray Unit of the Broad River Correctional Institution at Columbia, South Carolina, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South. On July 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 11.) 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 and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 11 at 4.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on July 28, 2014. In the absence objections to the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation, 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 and 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 the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge August 8, 2014 Greenville, 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.
