United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se Plaintiff, Manuel Cruz
(“Plaintiff”), is an inmate incarcerated at
Allendale Correctional Institution in the custody of the
South Carolina Department of Corrections. On August 14, 2017,
he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the
above-captioned defendants. Plaintiff filed this action
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. On November 29, 2017, the Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 29). The Court subsequently
sent Plaintiff a Roseboro order on November 30,
2017. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff was required to respond to
Defendants' Motion by December 13, 2017. (ECF No. 29). On
December 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay (ECF No.
32), and the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion but allowed
Plaintiff until February 1, 2018 to respond to
Defendants' Motion. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff responded to
Defendants' Motion on February 20, 2018 (ECF No. 43), and
the Defendants replied on February 27, 2018 (ECF No. 44). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.), the case was referred to a
Magistrate Judge for Review.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be
granted. (ECF No. 46 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 filed objections to the Report on March
23, 2018. (ECF No. 49). Therefore, this matter is ripe for
Motion to Dismiss
well established that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion examines whether
a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Traditionally, a plaintiff must provide “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that, under
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The
reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's
factual allegations, not its legal conclusions.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S.
on its decision in Twombly, the Supreme Court stated
[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require
“detailed factual allegations, ” but it demands
more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation. A pleading that offers “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders “naked
assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual
enhancement.” To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555-57, 570) (citations omitted); see Bass v.
Dupont, 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003).
This Court's Review of Magistrate's Report
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
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). Thus, the
Court must only review those portions of the Report to which
Plaintiff has made a specific written objection. Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316
(4th Cir. 2005).
objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge
to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are
at the heart of the parties' dispute.'”
Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, No.
0:15-cv-04009-JMC, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec.
12, 2017) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121
E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)). A
specific objection to the Magistrate's Report thus
requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the
Complaint or a mere citation to legal authorities. See
Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv-00765-RBH, 2017 WL
4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection
must “direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would
a failure to object.” Staley v. Norton, No.
9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2007)
(citing Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.1991)). The Court
reviews portions “not objected to-including those
portions to which only ‘general and conclusory'
objections have been made-for clear ...