United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Greenville Division
Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report, (ECF No. 47 at 8), and he filed timely objections. (ECF No. 49).
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).
Plaintiff’s objections fail to address any specific, dispositive portion of the Report. The 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. 47) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal ...