Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smalls v. Jones

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

July 16, 2018

Corey N. Smalls, #280821, Plaintiff,
v.
Mrs. Jones; Mr. Wingard; and Mr. Peeples; Mrs. Brooker, Defendants.

          ORDER

          JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The 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. § 1915.[1]

         After reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[2]prepared 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         In his 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.

         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 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).

         “An 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).

         “Generally 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).

         There 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.

         Therefore, this matter requires no further review from the Court.

         III. CONCLUSION

         After 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). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.