Bacon v. Mitchell

Full title: Charles Bacon, Plaintiff, v. Mary Mitchell, Warden, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

Date published: Feb 10, 2011

C.A. No.: 2:10-cv-02790-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2011)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 2:10-cv-02790-RBH.

February 10, 2011

ORDER

R. HARWELL, District Judge

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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).

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 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 reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4^th Cir. 2005) stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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.'" (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the Complaint in this case is dismissed, without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Restraining Order Against Retaliation by Staff" [Docket Entry 2] and "Motion for Preliminary Injunction" [Docket Entry 13] are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina

February 10, 2011