United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Kaymani D. West. See ECF Nos. 9 & 12. The
Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing
Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. R & R at p.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it 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. §
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
complaint and related filings, Plaintiff alleges Defendant
refused to provide her with a copy of her medical records
when she asked for them, thereby violating the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(“HIPAA”),  the Privacy Act of 1974,  and the South
Carolina Physicians' Patient Records Act. See ECF
Nos. 1, 1-2, & 1-3. The Magistrate Judge recommends
summarily dismissing Plaintiff's complaint because (1)
she cannot sue Defendant under these laws and (2) there is no
diversity jurisdiction. See R & R at pp. 4-7.
Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R, see
ECF No. 12, she fails to specifically object to the
Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations
summarized above. Thus, the Court has reviewed the R & R
for clear error and found none, and will therefore adopt it.
See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718
F.2d at 199-200. See also McCray v. Columbia Care
Ctr., No. CA 3:09-1872-RBH, 2009 WL 3839467 (D.S.C. Nov.
16, 2009) (summarily dismissing a similar action where the
plaintiff claimed the defendant did not provide him a copy of
his medical records); Krug v. Stonerock, No. CA
4:11-3297-CMC-JRM, 2011 WL 6982226 (D.S.C. Dec. 19, 2011),
adopted by, 2012 WL 88084 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2012)
foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff's
objections, adopts and incorporates by reference the R &
R [ECF No. 9], and DISMISSES Plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule ...