United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Corey N. Smalls, #280821, Plaintiff,
Mrs. Jones; Mr. Wingard; and Mr. Peeples; Mrs. Brooker, Defendants.
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se Plaintiff, Corey N. Smalls
(“Smalls” or “Plaintiff”), is an
inmate in the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.
reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to
this actionprepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and recommends summary
dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 9). 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.
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on May 21, 2018. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff
filed his objections to the Report on June 11, 2018. (ECF No.
11). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
Objection to the Magistrate's Report, Plaintiff has made
no specific objections. See (ECF No. 11). To the
contrary, Plaintiff merely recites the circumstances that led
him to bring this action, which is largely a reassertion of
information he provided in his Complaint. See (ECF
No. 1-1 p. 1-8). He did not make any arguments regarding the
Magistrate's Report. See id.
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 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).
is nothing in the Plaintiff's Objections that could be
construed as a specific objection. 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.
this matter requires no further review from the Court.
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). ...