United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
OPINION & ORDER
M. HERLONG, Jr., Senior District Judge.
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Robert Wazney
("Wazney"), a former pretrial detainee,
proceeding pro se, alleges several 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 claims
against the Defendants, including failure to properly respond
to his grievance requests, denial of legal materials,
interference with his mail, and denial of telephone access.
In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McDonald
recommends denying Wazney's motion to amend his complaint
and granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
(Report & Recommendation 11, ECF No. 77.)
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections
to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to
file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party's right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the
district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
review, the court finds that many of Wazney's objections
are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of
the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, or
merely restate his claims. The court, however, was able to
glean two specific objections. First, Wazney objects to the
dismissal of all of his Â§ 1983 claims against the individual
defendants. The magistrate judge found that Wazney failed to
plead any facts of personal involvement by any of the
individual defendants. Wazney contends that "[w]ithout
discovery, determining which defendants did which action is
almost impossible." (Objections 5, ECF No. 88.) However,
in order for an individual defendant to be liable under Â§
1983, it must be "affirmatively shown that the official
charged acted personally in the deprivation of the
plaintiff's rights.... Consequently, [an individual
defendant] must have had personal knowledge of and
involvement in the alleged deprivation of [a plaintiff's]
rights in order to be liable." Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985). Wazney has
generally failed to allege any specific, personal
participation by the individual defendants amounting to a
constitutional violation. Even where Wazney pleads specific
factual allegations against the individual defendants, his
allegations fail to allege any actions which amount to
constitutional violations and he has failed to show any
resulting injury from his allegations. See Williams v.
Bishop, Civil Action No. RWT-12-1616, 2014 WL 4662427, at *11
(D. Md. Sept. 17, 2014) (unpublished) ("Plaintiff has
not advised the Court of any actual injury or specific harm
that he suffered as a result of the alleged [Â§ 1983
claims]."). Thus, these individual defendants must be
Wazney claims that the specific injury - caused from being
prevented to write or call anyone upon arriving at the
Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center - was that he
"attended bond court without representation." (
Id., ECF No. 88.) However, Wazney has failed to show
any specific injury. As noted previously, Wazney has since
been convicted and sentenced to eighty years'
imprisonment. There is no allegation that Wazney did not
receive credit for time served while held as a pretrial
detainee. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that
Wazney's two specific objections are without merit.
Additionally, Wazney reasserts his request to amend his
complaint. However, the court finds that Wazney's
proposed allegations are futile. Therefore, after a thorough
review of the magistrate judge's Report and the record in
this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald's
Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, docket
number 47, is granted. It is further
that Wazney's motion to appoint counsel, docket number
80, is denied.
 The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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. The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. Â§ 636(b)(1).
 On April 15, 2015, Wazney was found guilty
in state court to criminal sexual conduct with a minor and
sentenced to eighty years' imprisonment. (Def. Mot. Summ.