United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Joseph E. Macon, Plaintiff,
Anderson County Tax Depositor, Anderson Court, State of South Carolina, SLED, DOJ, Department of the Treasury, Town of Williamston, James Cox, Judge J.E. Nicholson, and Anderson County, Defendants.
Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge.
Joseph E. Macon (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before
the court is the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that
Plaintiff's action be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF
No. 10). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file
objections to the Report. (ECF No. 10 at 12). On May 15,
2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash. (ECF No. 12).
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. 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 objection is made, and the court 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). However, the court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party makes only
“general and conclusory objections that do not 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). In the absence
of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate
Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
noted above, after the Report was filed, Plaintiff filed a
document labeled “motion to quash.” (ECF No. 12).
However, the motion is difficult to decipher and Plaintiff
fails to identify what the motion to quash refers to. Rather,
the motion appears to actually be an objection to the Report.
Therefore, the court construes Plaintiff's motion as an
objection to the Report.
Report, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim that is plausible on its face, failed to name a
proper defendant amenable to suit under § 1983, and that
the claims alleged are precluded by res judicata and
objection, Plaintiff fails to object to any specific portion
of the report. Rather, he argues generally and in a
conclusory manner that “none [of the cases cited by the
magistrate judge] fit this case” and fails to
elaborate. (ECF No. 12). The remainder of the objection
contains a restatement of Plaintiff's complaint and
general statements wholly unrelated to the dispositive
portions of the Report. Id. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's objection is denied. See Orpiano,
687 F.2d at 47.
court has thoroughly reviewed the Report of the magistrate
judge and the filings in this case. For the reasons set forth
above and by the magistrate judge, the court overrules
Plaintiff's objection and hereby adopts the Report (ECF
No. 10) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 The magistrate judge lists the
following as Plaintiff's previous cases involving largely
the same claims and Defendants as the instant case: Macon
v. Beddingfield, et al., No. 8:02-cv-3734-HFF, 2004 WL
3330002 (D.S.C. June 7, 2004), aff'd, 431
Fed.Appx. 248 (4th Cir. 2011); Macon v. Richey, No.
6:04-cv-1310-HFF, 2005 WL 2373910 (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2005),
aff'd, 133 Fed.Appx. 910 (4th Cir. 2005);
Macon v. Cox, et al, No. 6:04-1311-HFF, 2005 WL
4572216 (D.S.C. June 13, 2005); Macon v. South Carolina,
et al., No. 6:05-cv-3330-HFF (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2005);
Macon v. United States of America, et al., No.
8:05-cv-3105-HFF (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2005); Macon v. South
Carolina, et al., No. 8:08-cv-2832-HFF, 2008 WL 4501876
(D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2008). (ECF No. 10 at 5). Further,
Plaintiff's claims for unlawful attest and excessive use
of force, which form the basis for ...