United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr. Judge
pro se Plaintiff, John Baccus, brings this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff is an inmate in the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) and
is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory
and punitive damages.
reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to
this action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this
matter should be summarily dismissed without issuance and
service of process. The Magistrate Judge also opines that
Plaintiff's Motion to be Relocated, (ECF No. 4),
Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction, (ECF No.
28), and Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, (ECF No.
29), be denied as moot. (ECF No. 33). The Magistrate Judge
suggests that this action should be summarily dismissed
without issuance and service of process because: (1)
Plaintiff's claims are duplicative; (2) Plaintiff fails
to state a claim for relief; (3) Defendants South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Brian P. Stirling, Alan M. Wilson,
David C. Norton, and Bristow Marchant are each entitled to
dismissal from this action because they are not amenable to
suit under §1983; and (4) this action should also be
dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 41 because Plaintiff
has failed to bring his case into proper form after being
given multiple chances to do so. (ECF No. 33).
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
filed objections to the Report on November 5, 2018, (ECF No.
36), and supplemental objections on November 9, 2018, (ECF
No. 38). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.
Virginia 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)).
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. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 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. (citing Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315;
Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Orpiano, 687 F.2d
at 47) (emphasis added).
has presented no arguments that could be considered a
specific objection to the Report. The vast majority of
Plaintiff's objections rehash and supplement the
allegations in his complaint and other motions he has filed
with this Court. Plaintiff merely repeats arguments from his
complaint (ECF No. 1), his Motion to be Relocated, (ECF No.
4), his Motion for Emergency Injunction, (ECF No. 28), and
his Motion to Appoint Counsel, (ECF No. 29), which the
Magistrate addresses fully in her Report (ECF No. 33). The
Court reiterates it need only review those portions of the
Report to which Plaintiff has made a specific objection
First, from what the Court has attempted to decipher,
Plaintiff attempts to object by stating the general and
conclusory statement that Defendants are not entitled to
qualified immunity. Plaintiff states: “And Defendants
violated black Plaintiff's right to be free from
“RETALIATION”. . . involving white defendants
“ABUSE OF THEIR JUDICIAL POWER, ” and thus was
not entitled to 'QUALIFIED IMMUNITY[.]'” (ECF
No. 36 p. 1; ECF No. 38 p. 1). Although Plaintiff states that
Defendants do not have qualified immunity, he simply rehashes
arguments made in his complaint and does not direct the court
to a specific error in the Magistrate's proposed findings
and recommendations. Again, general and conclusory objections
that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the
Magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations are
not specific objections and do not warrant de novo
Plaintiff continually repeats the same arguments from his
complaint and prior motions that he was labeled as a
“routine criminal” and “priority
high” offender, (ECF No. 36 ps. 2-3, 5, 7). Next,
Plaintiff repeats arguments regarding why he did not bring
his case in proper form and attaches a copy of his prior
Motion to Appoint Counsel filed with this Court on September
24, 2018, (ECF No. 29), which the Magistrate Judge fully
addresses in her Report. (ECF No. 36 ps. 3-5).
Plaintiff states general and conclusory statements in an
attempt to explain why he did not bring his case in proper
form. Plaintiff states: “That Plaintiff who is black
(wrongfully indicted, convicted, incarcerated), lacks the
capacity to investigate, prepare, put into proper form or
present it effectively while under the custody and control of
Defendants.” (ECF No. 36 p. 4). Plaintiff previously
raised this argument in his Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF
No. 29). It appears that Plaintiff is again rehashing his
argument that he could not bring his case in proper form
because he did not have a copy of his complaint. Although
this rehash is not a specific objection, in any event, the
docket reveals that on August 28, 2018, the Clerk sent