James Nanney v. Mr. Larochelle

Opinion

Es ei eal Syne /S eS Cori” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION MR. JAMES NANNEY, /D 0298657, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 3:24-7290-MGL § MR. LAROCHELLE, Director LR.S. § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND TRANSFERRING THIS ACTION TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Plaintiff Mr. James Nanney, ID 0298657, a/k/a James David Nanney a/k/a James D. Nanney (Nanney), who is representing himself, filed this civil action against Defendant Mr. LaRochelle, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.§ 636 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 17, 2024. To date, Nanney has failed to file any objections.

“[I]n 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 16th day of January 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Nanney is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.