United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Angelo Ham (“Plaintiff”) brings this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed the action alleging the use
of excessive force, as well as cruel and unusual punishment,
in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims he was injured and denied prompt medical
treatment, thus depriving him of his rights under the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 1-2.)
For the reasons set forth herein, the court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 39) and
DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No.
1) as to Defendants Galloway and Smithtana without
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Report sets forth the relevant facts (ECF No. 39 at 1-2),
which this court incorporates herein without a recitation,
except as to the facts pertinent to the analysis of
Plaintiff's Objections. As brief background, Plaintiff
filed an initial Complaint on June 18, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) By
order dated July 26, 2018, Plaintiff was given until August
16, 2018, to provide the proper mailing addresses for service
of process against Defendants Galloway and Smithtana. (ECF
No. 19.) The court then granted three further extensions to
Plaintiff to provide this information. (ECF Nos. 22, 28, 33.)
By November 14, 2018, Plaintiff failed to provide the
requested service documents, and, therefore, failed to comply
with an order of this court. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the court
dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Defendants Galloway
and Smithtana without prejudice. (ECF No. 39 at 3.) This
review considers Plaintiff's Objections to the Report,
filed December 3, 2018. (ECF No. 44.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no
presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. Id. at 271.
As such, the court is charged with making de novo
determinations of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter
with instructions. Id. Additionally, as Plaintiff is
a pro se litigant, the court is required to
liberally construe his arguments. Gordon v. Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
purpose of magistrate review is to conserve judicial
resources.” Nichols v. Colvin, 100 F.Supp.3d
487, 497 (E.D. Va. 2015). Generally, a party's objection
to a magistrate judge's report must be “specific
and particularized” in order to facilitate review by a
district court. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d
616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). “An ‘objection'
that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a
magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes
what has been presented before, is not an
‘objection' as that term is used in this
context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743,
747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Thus, a de novo review is
wholly unnecessary for a district court to undertake when a
party seeks to rehash general arguments that were already
addressed in a magistrate judge's report. See Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); Jones
v. Hamidullah, No. 2:05-2736-PMD-RSC, 2005 WL 3298966,
at *3 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2005).
instant case, the court has reviewed Plaintiff's
Complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff's Motions for Extensions
of Time (ECF Nos. 21, 27, 32), Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 41), Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 44),
the Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No.
45), and the Report (ECF No. 39). After examining all of
these documents, the court concludes that Plaintiff's
Objection restates arguments that were addressed by both the
Report and the Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel. (Compare ECF No. 44 at 2-3, with
ECF No. 39 at 2-3, and ECF No. 45 at 2.) Moreover,
Plaintiff's Objection largely mirrors his Motion to
Compel which was denied by the court. (Compare ECF
No. 44 at 2, with ECF No. 41 at 1-2.) As such, a
de novo review is unnecessary because Plaintiff has
“failed to guide the [c]ourt towards specific issues
needing resolution ....... ” Nichols, 100
F.Supp.3d at 498 (holding that a claimant failed to raise
specific objections when he repeated arguments raised in his
initial brief). This court declines to hear rehashed
arguments from Plaintiff. Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47.
The court finds that the Report adequately addresses
Plaintiffs Objection and is well-reasoned. See Fray v.
Berryhill, No. 6:16-2916-TMC, 2018 WL 1224687, at *5
(D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2018) (adopting a magistrate judge's
report in which the court concurred “with both the
reasoning and the result”). Therefore, the Report is
thorough review of the issues in this case and review of the
Report and the record in this case, the court finds that the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and
does not contain clear error. Therefore, the court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 39) and incorporates it herein.
Accordingly, the court summarily DISMISSES
Plaintiff s Complaint (ECF No. 1) as to Defendants Galloway
and Smithtana without prejudice.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Report only addressed dismissal of
Defendants Galloway and Smithtana due to the failure of
Plaintiff to properly serve Defendants Galloway and Smithtana
with the Summons and Complaint. The remaining ...