Lang v. Furman University

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

) Robert Lang, ) Civil Action No. 6:20-759-BHH ) Plaintiff, )

) vs. ORDER AND OPINION )

) Furman University, Robert Bierly, Lisa ) Knight, Alex Francis-Ratte, Katherine ) Palmer Kaup, )

) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On April 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Austin issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim (ECF No. 7) be granted. (See ECF No. 22.) 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 to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on April 27, 2020. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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). Moreover, “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 that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim (ECF No. 7) should be granted. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s civil

conspiracy claim (ECF No. 7) is hereby GRANTED. This action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings consistent with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge

May 7, 2020 Greenville, South Carolina

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.