United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. See ECF Nos. 12 & 14. The
Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing
Plaintiff's pro se complaint without prejudice. R & R
at p. 6.
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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
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).
proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint naming the
“Hartsville Magistrate Court Clerk” as the sole
Defendant and purporting to assert claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), and the
United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
See ECF No. 1. The Magistrate Judge recommends
summarily dismissing Plaintiff's complaint because (1)
Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and (2)
Plaintiff fails to state any plausible claims against
Defendant under the statutes and laws mentioned in her
complaint. See R & R at pp. 4-6.
has filed objections, but she does not specifically object to
the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and
recommendations summarized above. See Diamond &
Camby, supra (stating that absent a
specific objection, the Court need only review the R & R
for clear error and need not give reasons for adopting it).
Instead, she generally “objects to the dismissal of
[this] case, ” asks to “withdraw” her FOIA
claim, and states she “would like to also add as a
basis for my lawsuit violation of my political rights, which
are an example of Unenumerated rights which arise from the
U.S. Constitution.” See ECF No. 14 at pp. 1-2;
ECF No. 14-2 at p. 2. Plaintiff's objections provide no
basis for this Court to deviate from the Magistrate
Judge's recommended disposition, and therefore the Court
will adopt the R & R.
foregoing reasons, the Court adopts and incorporates by
reference the R & R [ECF No. 12] of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule ...