United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
Lyndale Gaddy (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner
proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No.
1). 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
filed his Complaint on May 25, 2018. (ECF No. 1). On June 19,
2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff filed an
objection to the Report on June 27, 2018. (ECF No. 13).
this matter is ripe for review.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending the Court
dismiss this action as frivolous and without issuance and
service of process. (ECF No. 9 p. 13). Additionally, the
Magistrate recommended that this action be deemed a
“strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Id. (ECF No. 41). 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
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.Va. 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 Magistrate's
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. Sec'y 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. (emphasis added) (citing Diamond, 416
F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200;
Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47).
Objection to the Magistrate's Report, Plaintiff has made
no specific objections. See (ECF No. 13). To the contrary,
Plaintiff merely cites to legal authorities, makes conclusory
allegations, and reasserts arguments from his Complaint.
See id. Without specific objections to the Report,
this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the Magistrate's recommendation. See
Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate's
recommendation (ECF No. 9). Therefore, Plaintiff's
Complaint is dismissed as frivolous and without issuance and