United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se Plaintiff, Michael Harriot
(“Plaintiff”), is an inmate incarcerated in the
Federal Correctional Institution in Estill, South Carolina.
On February 23, 2018, 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. 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 this action should be dismissed without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 7 p.
2). 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 15, 2018. (ECF No.
10). Plaintiff subsequently filed a supplement to his
Objections on April 13, 2018. (ECF No. 11). Therefore, this
matter is ripe for review.
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
Servs., 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 error.”
Id. (citing Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315;
Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Orpiano, 687 F.2d
at 47) (emphasis added).
objections, Plaintiff merely repeats arguments from his
Complaint (ECF No. 1), which the Magistrate addressed fully
in her Report (ECF No. 7). Moreover, Plaintiff cites to legal
authorities without providing the Court with facts to connect
the authorities to the present case. Repetitions of prior
arguments the Magistrate has already addressed and citations
to legal authority are not enough to constitute a specific
objection. See Workman, 2017 WL 4791150, at *1;
Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. In the absence of specific
objections to portions of the Report, this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the
Magistrate's recommendation. See Camby, 718 F.2d
at 199. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff is pro se,
this Court will address each of his arguments in turn.
first objection, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate's
finding that Plaintiff's claims against Wilson are barred
by prosecutorial immunity. (ECF No. 7 p. 5). Specifically,
Plaintiff states that Wilson “deliberately concealed
Plaintiff's arrest without a warrant” and that he
“submitted false statements of facts in a criminal
complaint.” (ECF No. 10 p. 8). Plaintiff also argues
that the arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause.
Plaintiff made these same arguments in his Complaint. (ECF
No. 1 p. 7-9). A specific objection to the Magistrate's
Report requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the
Complaint or 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). Plaintiff's first
objection does not constitute a specific objection because he
merely reasserts arguments from his Complaint. Therefore,
Plaintiff's first objection is unfounded, and it requires
no further explanation.
second objection is “that the Defendants' knowingly
and willfully did combine, confederate and agree together,
‘conspire' as well as each defendants acted
individually and in his/her officially capacity” and
that “Louthian and Roberson conspire with Wilson and
Waizenhofer who acted under color of federal law.” (ECF
No. 10 p. 9). Plaintiff has provided no facts to support his
assertion. He has merely made a conclusory allegation. A
conclusory allegation does not ...