United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
OPINION & ORDER
M. HERLONG, JUDGE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Frank Stephon
Johnson (“Johnson”), a state pretrial detainee,
proceeding pro se, alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In her Report and Recommendation issued December 28,
2018, Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends that Defendant
Roach be dismissed. (R&R 8, ECF No. 58.)
the Report and Recommendation was issued, Johnson filed a
motion to amend or correct the second amended complaint and a
motion to appoint counsel. (Mot. Am., ECF No. 61; Mot.
Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 62.) Out of an abundance of caution,
the court construes these documents as objections. Objections
to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to
file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party's right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the
district judge. See United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In
the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon review, the court finds that
Johnson's objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the Report and Recommendation, or
merely restate his claims. Accordingly, after review, the
court finds that Johnson's objections are without merit.
the motion to amend, Johnson previously amended his complaint
twice and has filed five motions to amend throughout the
pendency of this action. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 20; Second Am.
Compl., ECF No. 28; Mot. Am., ECF Nos. 10, 14, 25, 40, 49.)
Thus, Johnson has had multiple opportunities to amend his
complaint and cure the deficiencies therein. See Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (holding that a motion
to amend may be denied for “undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure
to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, [and] futility of amendment”). Further,
Johnson has provided no basis under Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to amend his second amended
complaint. Johnson's motion to amend contains generalized
grievances against the staff at Allen S. Glenn Detention
Center and does not contain any additional information
pertaining to Defendant Roach or Johnson's slip and fall
incident, which is the subject of the instant action.
Accordingly, Johnson's motion to amend or correct is
denied for “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed.” See id.
after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's Report
and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate
Judge Gossett's Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein.
that Officer Roach is dismissed. It is further
that Johnson's motion to amend, docket number 61, is
denied. It is further
that Johnson's motion to appoint counsel, docket number
62, is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order
within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.