Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Watts v. Unknown Officer of Lexington County Sheriff's Department

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

October 8, 2014

William T. Watts, II, #90124, Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Officer of Lexington County Sheriff's Department; Unknown SLED Officers; Unknown U.S. Military; FBI; John Etters; Craig Hall; Officer Shumpert; Officer Singleton; James Metts; Lewis McCarty; Commissioner of SLED (Sheriff, Head, Leader); Governor Nikki Haley; and the United States, Defendants.

ORDER

TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff William T. Watts, II, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed as frivolous and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 13). The magistrate also recommended that the dismissal be deemed a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15).

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In that case, the court reviews the Report only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

As set forth above, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff first objects to all of the recommendations and then he list three grounds for objections. Id. However, his objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report, or merely restate Plaintiff's claims. The court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Plaintiff's objections and finds no reason to deviate from the Report's recommended disposition.

Accordingly, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 13) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for frivolousness and without issuance and service of process, and this dismissal is deemed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See also McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d. 391, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that a dismissal for frivolousness or maliciousness, with no designation regarding prejudice, may be designated a strike).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.