United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Spartanburg Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
Timothy Dale Crockett (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this
civil action seeking monetary damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief. Plaintiff states that he is a federal
detainee currently housed at the Spartanburg County Jail but
will soon be moved to federal prison to serve a sentence
issued on September 5, 2018. (ECF No. 22); (ECF No. 27 at 4).
Pretrial proceedings in this action were referred to the
assigned United States Magistrate Judge under Local Civil
10, 2018, this Court issued an order advising Plaintiff that
his case was not in proper form and directing him to bring
the case into proper from by May 31, 2018. (ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff brought his case into proper form on May 21, 2018.
(ECF No. 13).
reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to
this action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and recommended that
the district court decline to automatically give the
plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint for the purpose of
curing procedural defects and dismiss the action without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF
No. 14). 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.
district court is required to conduct a de novo review only
of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report
to which objections are 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 Judge'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 Judge'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).
an objection is “nonspecific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, or merely restate[s] . . . claims, ”
the Court need not conduct any further review of that
objection. Field v. McMaster, 663 F.Supp.2d 449, 452
(D.S.C. 2009); see McNeil v. S.C. Dept. of
Corrections, No. 5:12-2880-MGL, 2013 WL 1102881, at *1
(D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2013) (finding petitioner's objections
to be without merit where the objections were
“non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of
the Magistrate Judge's Report, and consist[ed] of a
reassertion of the arguments” made in the petition);
Arbogast v. Spartanburg Cty., No.
07:11-cv-00198-GRA, 2011 WL 5827635, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 17,
2011) (finding that plaintiff's objections were not
specific where the objections were “general and
conclusory in that they merely reassert[ed] that his
conviction was wrongful”).
filed his Objections to the Report on June 6, 2018, in which
he raised four objections. (ECF No. 20). While it is
questionable whether several of the objections are related to
the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge's
Report, this Court reviews them all below out of an abundance
Objection I: Nature of the Case as Involving the Handling and
Disposition of the Assets and Estate of Jane Evelyn
first objects that the Report erroneously insinuates his
Complaint “involves multiple issues surrounding the
handling and disposition of assets and the estate of [Jane
Evelyn Penor-]Copeland.” (ECF No. 14 at 2); (ECF No. 20
at 2). However, this objection does not appear to focus the
Court's attention on an issue related to the dispositive
portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report. Indeed,
whether the case may involve adjudication of an estate rather
than the causes of action articulated by the Plaintiff was
not analyzed in the Report.
possibility is that Plaintiff is objecting to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed
because of the absence of a federal question to give the
Court subject matter jurisdiction over the present case. To
the extent Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's
rationale, this Court agrees with the Report that Plaintiff
has failed to allege a federal question and ...