- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
EVINS v. GOINS
Factual and Procedural Background
This matter came before the United States District Court for review of a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02. [1] The plaintiff filed no objections to the recommendation. [2]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation after reviewing the record and receiving no objections. [1][2][3]
- What disposition should be entered in the case. [3][4]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976) | A magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the district court retains responsibility for the final determination. | The court relied on this principle in reviewing the Report and Recommendation. [5] |
| Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) | When no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court is not required to explain its adoption of the recommendation. | Because the plaintiff filed no objections, the court adopted the recommendation without providing further explanation. [2][3] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court explained that it retained responsibility for making the final determination and could accept, reject, modify, or recommit the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. [5] Because the plaintiff filed no objections, the court was not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. [2] After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record, the court adopted the recommendation and incorporated it into the order. [3]
Holding and Implications
The case was dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. [4] The direct effect was termination of this action on those terms. The opinion does not identify broader implications or establish a new precedent.
BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, 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).
The Plaintiff filed no 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Marchant's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alert