United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
ORDER AND OPINION
matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
filed on February 6, 2019, recommending that Plaintiff
Kenneth Polley's Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed. (ECF
No. 13.) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging Defendants Chuck Wright, Major Freeman,
Captain Hayes, and John and Jane Does (collectively,
“Defendants”) violated his constitutional rights.
(ECF No. 1.) The Report recommends that the court dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons
stated herein, the court ACCEPTS the Report
(ECF No. 13), incorporating it herein, and
DISMISSES the Complaint (ECF No. 1) with
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
court concludes upon a careful review of the record that the
factual and procedural summation in the Magistrate
Judge's Report is accurate, and the court adopts this
summary as its own. (ECF No. 13.) The court will only recite
facts pertinent to the analysis of Plaintiff's
Objections. (ECF No. 16.)
is currently a pre-trial detainee at the Spartanburg County
Detention Center, where he has been since May 25, 2018. (ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 12, 2018,
alleging a violation of his constitutional rights under the
First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. (ECF No. 1) On January 25, 2019,
Plaintiff amended his Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) On February 6,
2019, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report recommending the
court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with
prejudice. (ECF No. 13.) In this Report, the Magistrate Judge
addressed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and determined
that Plaintiff still failed to allege facts supporting his
claim of constitutional violations. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff timely filed his Objections on February 20, 2019.
(ECF No. 16.)
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, which has no presumptive
weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court must dismiss
civil actions filed in forma pauperis if they are
frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews, 423 U.S. at
270-71. The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made. Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part,
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, or recommit the
matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §630(b)(1).
to a Report and Recommendation must specifically identify
portions of the Report and the basis for those objections.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). In the absence of specific objections to
the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required
to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983). Rather, “in the absence of a timely filed
objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.'”
Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72
advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to
timely file specific, written objections to the Report
results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from
the judgment of a district court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). If a plaintiff fails to
properly object because the objections lack the requisite
specificity, then de novo review by the court is not
required. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315.
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). The court
addresses those arguments that, under the mandated liberal
construction, it has reasonably found to state a claim.
Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.
Plaintiff's Objections provide additional facts in
support of his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's claim still
fails to rise to the level of a constitutional violation
under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rizzo v. Good, 423
U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976). Under § 1983, a plaintiff must
show that he suffered a specific injury resulting from a
defendant's conduct and must show an affirmative link
between the injury and that conduct. (ECF No. 13 at 3 (citing
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985);
Rizzo v. Good, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976).)
Plaintiff failed to allege an injury caused by specific
conduct, in either his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8), or his
Objections (ECF No. 16). Moreover, Plaintiff's Objections
make no reference to the pleading insufficiencies in the
Report at all. (See ECF No. 22.) As such,
Plaintiff's Objections lack the requisite specificity
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because
Plaintiff failed to properly object to the Report with
specificity, the court need not conduct a de novo
review and instead must “only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d
at 315. The court does not find clear error and accepts the
Report by the Magistrate Judge.
on the aforementioned reasons and a thorough review of the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the
record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the
Report (ECF No. 13), incorporating it herein, and
DISMISSES the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8),