United States District Court, District of South Carolina
January 28, 2015
Muhammad Al-Mujahidin, Plaintiff,
Jeanette McBride, individual capacity; Richland County Clerk of Court, in its official capacity, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge
Muhammad Al-Mujahidin (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendant Jeanette McBride, Richland County Clerk of Court (“the defendant”) in both her individual and official capacities. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling and a Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Marchant recommends that the court grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33). (ECF No. 56.) The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the court incorporates them without recitation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270–71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, 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 the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The plaintiff filed an objection (ECF No. 58) to the Report and Recommendation, which the Court has carefully reviewed. The objection fails to direct the Court to any specific error in the Magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations. Rather, the plaintiff’s objections merely rehash points raised in his response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff’s brief objections, finds them to be without merit, and hereby overrules them. The Report and Recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law, and the Court agrees with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge.
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the court overrules the plaintiff’s objections and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.