United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Bobby J. Reid, Plaintiff,
v.
Letitia Verdin, Henry J. Mills, W. Walter Wilkins, Candace F. Clark, Daniel R. Hughes, Evan C. Bramhall, John B. Duggan, Ann Marie Howell, James E. Hudson, and Howard Steinburg, Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
BRUCE
HOWE HENDRICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is once again before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South
Carolina. On July 13, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending
that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 31.)
The
Court initially adopted the Report (ECF No. 31) on August 14,
2018. On August 20 and 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections
(ECF No. 38) to Magistrate Judge McDonald's prior orders
denying him bond and appointed counsel, as well as a motion
to amend the complaint (ECF No. 39). The motion to amend the
complaint was denied as moot on August 24, 2018. (ECF No.
42.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 44) asserting that he never received a copy of the Report
prior to the Court's adoption thereof. On January 9,
2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and vacated its previous order adopting the
Report. (ECF No. 52.) The case was reopened and Plaintiff was
granted thirty (30) days in which to file his objections to
the Report, if any. On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
motion for copies (ECF No. 56), stating he still had not
received a copy of the Report. The motion was granted in
part, and the Report was mailed to Plaintiff, along with the
public docket sheet, on January 31, 2019. (ECF No. 57.)
Plaintiff was, again, granted thirty (30) days from the entry
of the Text Order granting in part the motion for copies in
which to file his objections. (Id.) Plaintiff filed
objections on March 7, 2019[1] (ECF No. 63), as well as a motion
for copies at no expense (ECF No. 65) on May 13, 2019, which
was subsequently denied (ECF No. 67).
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71
(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation 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).
However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a
party makes only “general and conclusory objections
that do not 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). In the absence of a timely filed,
specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions
are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
As
noted above, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report, which the Court has carefully reviewed.
The objections, though verbose, fail to state any specific
objection to the Magistrate Judge's sound reasoning or
direct the Court to any specific error in the proposed
findings and recommendation that this action be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process
for failure to state a claim. Nevertheless, in an abundance
of caution the Court has conducted a de novo review. After
careful review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge's comprehensive and well-reasoned Report. The Court
finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately
summarized the facts, applied the correct principles of law,
and committed no error. Moreover, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's objections lack merit, and they are hereby
overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court
overrules Plaintiff's objections, and adopts and
incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation. Accordingly, this action is dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process
because the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot cure the
defects in his complaint by mere amendment.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] Error! Main Document Only. This filing
date reflects that the envelope containing the petition was
stamped as having been received on May 7, 2019, by the
McDougall Correctional Institution Mailroom. (ECF No. 63-1.)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (holding
prisoner's pleading is considered filed when ...