Preview:

Flores v. Lexington et al                                                                            Doc. 54
                                                                                                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                                                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                                                                                                     ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Raymond Flores,                                                                                      )
                                                                                                     )                                     C.A. No. 8:10-1291-HMH-BHH
Plaintiff,                                                                                           )
)
vs.                                                                                                  )                                     OPINION AND ORDER
)
James Metts, Trinity Food Services,                                                                  )
)
Defendants.                                                                                          )
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, 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 recommenda-
tion 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,
199 (4th Cir. 1983).  The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
1
Dockets.Justia.com




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 Hendricks’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein.  It is therefore
ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for
failure to comply with this court’s orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
January 25, 2011
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

Download 25208.pdf

South Carolina Law