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.

Legette v. Wilson

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

January 23, 2018

Roger Syndell Legette, a/k/a Roger Syntell Legette, Plaintiff,
v.
Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The pro se Plaintiff, Roger S. Legette (“Legette” or “Plaintiff”), is an inmate at the Evans Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, SC. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending Defendant violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.[1]

         After reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[2]prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opined that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 9 p. 6). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

         Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on November 14, 2017. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff filed his objections to the Report on November 29, 2017. (ECF No. 12). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

         Plaintiff's objection to the Report is nothing more than a diatribe, which lacks any coherent legal arguments. He has made various vague and incoherent statements that fail to respond to the Report or specifically reference any findings of fact or conclusions of law. See (ECF No. 12).

         For example, Plaintiff objects to “the section titled ‘Background' at page 1 of the Report.” (ECF No. 12 p. 2). Thereafter, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate does not have the authority to issue recommendations, and he goes on to quote large sections of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Id. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to the Attorney General's absolute immunity. (ECF No. 12 p. 3). He states that the Report's position on absolute immunity, which is the law of South Carolina and this Court, “doesn't fly.” (ECF No. 12 p. 3). Plaintiff goes on to quote large sections of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Finally, on page five (5) of the Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 12 p. 5), Plaintiff states, “with respect to the remaining points raised in the Report of the Magistrate I object in general.” (ECF No. 12 p. 5) (emphasis added).

         Plaintiff has not made any specific objections to the report. See (ECF No. 12). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate's Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

         III. CONCLUSION

         Therefore, after carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report (ECF No. 9), and the objections thereto (ECF No. 12), this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 9). Thus, this action is dismissed without prejudice.

         IT IS ...


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.