United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Report) granting summary judgment in favor of
Warden Denis Bush and Sgt. K. McMorris (Defendants), Herman
Joseph Daniels (Plaintiff) untimely filed objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff claims that he did not
receive the Report until July 5, 2018. (ECF No. 38 p. 4). The
Magistrate Judge issued the Report on June 27, 2018. (ECF No.
30). The Report was mailed to Plaintiff that same day. (ECF
No. 31). Plaintiff had until July 14, 2018 to file
objections. Plaintiff failed to do so.
Court notes that Plaintiff did not ask for an extension of
time to file objections. On July 17, 2018, this Court issued
its order adopting the Report. (ECF No. 35). On July 20,
2018, the Court received Plaintiff's objections.
Defendants timely filed a reply in opposition to the
objections. (ECF No. 39).
Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to
timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal
from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation.” (ECF No. 30-2). The Report further
cautioned that “[o]bjections must specifically identify
the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections are made and the basis for such objections.”
Plaintiff's untimeliness, the Court gives Plaintiff the
benefit of the doubt in his statement that he did not receive
the Report until July 5, 2018, and that he was not able to
access the law library in time to respond by July 14, 2018.
Thus, this Court vacates its grant of summary judgment (ECF
No. 35) and now considers Defendants objections to the
Report. Having fully considered Plaintiff's objections,
this Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a specific
objection to the Report.
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).
objection does not point to any error of the Magistrate
Judge's Report. For five pages, Plaintiff discusses the
negative aspects of being an inmate in the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC). Plaintiff writes about his
original conviction, the SCDC, and the timeliness of his
objections. Plaintiff ends by asking for the SCDC to release
from his trust funds fees that are required to be paid.
was adequately warned that “[o]bjections must
specifically identify the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for
such objections.” (ECF No. 30-2). Plaintiff has failed
to identify any portion of the Report that is incorrect.
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
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