Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Blackstock v. Pee Dee Mental Health

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

October 29, 2017

Sepia Vonnetta Blackstock, Plaintiff,
v.
Pee Dee Mental Health, Defendant.

          ORDER

          R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.

         This 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.[1] See ECF Nos. 9 & 12. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. R & R at p. 7.

         Standard of Review

         The 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. § 636(b)(1).

         The 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).

         Discussion[2]

         In her 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”), [3] the Privacy Act of 1974, [4] and the South Carolina Physicians' Patient Records Act.[5] 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.

         Although 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.[6] 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) (same).

         Conclusion

         For the 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.[7]

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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