United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Brandy Vernon Harris (Harris) is proceeding pro se. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting Harris's petition is subject to summary
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Report was
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report to which specific objection is
made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court need not conduct a de novo review,
however, “when a party makes general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error
in the [Magistrate Judge's] proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
“A document filed pro se is ‘to be
liberally construed.'” Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however, required
to “conjure up questions never squarely presented to
them” or seek out arguments for a party. Beaudett
v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 6, 2019, ECF No.
20, and the Clerk filed Harris's objections on March 13,
2019, ECF No. 22. The Clerk also filed Harris's motion
for a new case number, ECF No. 26, and a subsequent letter
Harris sent the Court regarding his motion for a new case
number, ECF No. 29.
reviewing Harris's complaint, the Magistrate Judge
entered an order giving Harris twenty-one days to amend his
complaint and warning him that failure to amend would lead to
a recommendation for summary dismissal. ECF No. 10.
Harris's amended complaint is over one-hundred-thirty
copies of one page of the standard complaint form this Court
provides pro se litigants. Each one of the one-hundred-thirty
pages has a date, time, place, and the name of a defendant in
this action, along with a conclusory legal phrase such as
“false arrest, ” “racial discrimination,
” or “deliberate indifference.” Critically,
Harris fails to provide any facts or specific allegations
explaining how even one of the named defendants in this
action violated his constitutional rights. Although Harris
attached various legal documents and arrest records to his
amended complaint, there is no clear connection between the
documents and the defendants. Harris fails to even list a
cause of action anywhere in his amended complaint that would
allow this Court to construe his pleadings such that he
states a cognizable legal claim.
objections to the Report, Harris purports to submit
“Facts to Each Claim, ” presumably in response to
the Magistrate Judge's assertion Harris's amended
complaint was devoid of facts and therefore subject to
summary dismissal. For example, Harris asserts as one of his
I was found not guilty of 9 charges, I faxed a memo to the
appeal judge Mrs. Weaver the Defendant herein appeal his
conviction and sentence and request reversal on the following
grounds: (1) The judge did not direct a verdict despite the
incident occurring on private property, and (2) the judge did
not dismiss this case when the behavior the defendant was
charged for is speech protected by the 1st amendment of the
ECF No. 22 at 2. Harris continues, “For the reason
stated above the defendant requests that his conviction for
public disorderly conduct be reversed but was reverse 9
chargies was dismiss 2 appeals which proves violations within
appeals makes total of 11 not guilty chargies.”
Id. (errors in original).
remainder of Harris's objections unfortunately are
replete with similarly worded legal conclusions without the
necessary facts or allegations against defendants in this
case necessary to state a claim and survive summary
dismissal. The Court concludes all of the materials Harris
has submitted, liberally construed, fail to correct the
deficiencies identified in the Report. And, to the extent
Harris's letter or motion for a new case number could be
construed as a motion to amend, the Court will decline to
give Harris another opportunity to amend because such
amendment would be futile. See Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 447-48 (4th Cir. 2017) (finding the plaintiff's
“repeated, ineffective attempts at amendment”
suggest further amendment would be futile).
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules
Harris's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates
it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court
Harris's complaint is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of
process. Because the Court concludes summary dismissal is
appropriate, the Court DISMISSES AS MOOT
Harris's motion for a new case number.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order
within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3