United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
(ECF No. 11), recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint
(ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice. For the reasons
stated below, the court ACCEPTS the Report
(ECF No. 11).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
court concludes upon its own careful review of the record
that the factual and procedural summation in the Report (ECF
No. 11) is accurate, and the court adopts this summary as its
own. Subsequently, the court will only recite herein, facts
pertinent to the court's review of the Report (ECF No.
11). On February 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West
filed the Report (ECF No. 11) and on February 24, 2017,
Plaintiff timely filed an Objection (ECF No. 15).
court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 which gives the court jurisdiction over civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of
the United States. Plaintiff brings his case pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for Defendants alleged violation of his
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court,
which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a
final determination remains with this 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 to which specific objections are made.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3). “In the absence of a timely
filed, specific objection, the magistrate judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error.”
James v. Cohen, No. CV 1:17-01256-TMC, 2017 WL
4371548, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 3, 2017) (citing Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, “[i]n the absence of
objection, for which provision is made by the statute [28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)], we do not believe [the
court's acceptance of the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation] requires any explanation.”
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
to file specific written objections to the Report results in
a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment
of the District Court based upon such recommendation. See
Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir.
1997) (“[t]he Supreme Court has authorized the waiver
rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A] court of appeals may
adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a district
court judgment that adopts a magistrate's recommendation,
upon the filing of objections with the district court
identifying those issues on which further review is
desired.'”) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 155 (1985)); see also 28 U.S.C. §
Objection (ECF No. 15) is not specific to the Report, simply
reiterating that Major Anderson was responsible for the
violations of his civil rights. The Magistrate Judge addressed
Plaintiff's claims against Major Anderson, construing
Plaintiff's claims to include claims against Major
Anderson both in his official and individual capacity. (ECF
No. 11 at 4-5.) The Magistrate Judge found that Major
Anderson had Eleventh Amendment immunity in his official
capacity (id. at 4), and that he could not be found
liable in his individual capacity pursuant to Section 1983,
“simply based on his job as the overall supervisor at
CCDC.” (Id. at 7.) The Magistrate Judge found
that Plaintiff did not establish a plausible Section 1983
claim against Defendant Anderson, thus Plaintiff's
Complaint must be dismissed as to him. (See Id.
at 7.) Without specific objections to any part of the Report,
the court does not need to review the Report de
novo, but must only ensure that no clear error has been
made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3);
James, 2017 WL 4371548, at *1.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of
the facts and law. Therefore, the court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No.
15) and ACCEPTS the Report (ECF No. 11)
DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's
Complaint (ECF No. 1).