United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se Plaintiff, John Baccus, initially commenced
this action pursuant to 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. This Court
previously dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice
on February 28, 2019. (ECF No. 45). However, Plaintiff
subsequently filed a motion for emergency injunction on March
7, 2019. (ECF No. 49). This matter was referred back to the
Magistrate Judge who has prepared a Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 52).
reviewing the motion, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this
action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this
motion should be denied. The Magistrate Judge suggests that
this motion should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to
allege the necessary elements for injunctive relief
articulated in Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 55 U.S. 7 (2008).
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 April 5, 2019. (ECF No.
59). 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)). A
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. Similar to the objections
Plaintiff filed to the Magistrate Judge's initial Report
and Recommendation suggesting dismissal of Plaintiff's
Complaint, the vast majority of Plaintiff's objections
rehash and supplement the allegations in his complaint, other
motions he has filed with this Court, and objections to the
prior Report. 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), his
Motion to Appoint Counsel, (ECF No. 29), along with
objections (ECF No. 36), and supplemental objections (ECF No.
38) to the Magistrate Judge's initial Report (ECF No.
33). All of these arguments were addressed in this
Court's prior Order dismissing this action with
prejudice. (ECF No. 45). The Court reiterates it need only
address those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has
made a specific objection.
objections contain fifteen numbered paragraphs that include
various grievances which are difficult to understand.
Plaintiff's first paragraph states he is being deterred
from responding to the Report due to the seizures of
“legal boxes, mesh bag materials, and some personal
property” when he was placed in segregation. (ECF No.
59 ¶ 1). The second paragraph “seeks to have the
[Rules . . .] related to his claims of [abuse] rescinded and
Defendants to stop the abuses . . .” (brackets in
original). Id. at ¶ 2. The third and fourth
paragraphs appear to state that Plaintiff's complaint was
improperly dismissed as it was a “complaint for
declaratory judgment.” Id. at ¶ 4.
Paragraphs five, six, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve appear to
object to Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn Austin's handling of
this proceeding and prior recommendation of dismissal.
Id. at ¶ 5 (“U.S. Magistrate Jacquelyn D.
Austin erred by dismissing Plaintiffs claims . . . because he
is black.”). Paragraphs seven and eight simply state
“Plaintiff clear challenges to the legality of
Defendants' Rules itself and not its application to his
individual circumstances” and “Defendants denial
of Plaintiff's grievances challenging agency rules and
actions.” Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Paragraphs
thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen, although difficult to
follow, appear to rehash the same arguments presented in
Plaintiff's original complaint and objections to the
initial Report recommending dismissal. Id. at ¶
13 (“Petitioner was prosecuted convicted incarcerated
without due process”); Id. at ¶ 14
(“This Plaintiffs Writ of Habeas Corpus in conjunction
with this Section 1983 . . . did not provide a remedy against
the Klu Klux Klan”); Id. at ¶ 15
(“The State of South Carolina Criminal Justice System .
. . have denied to black persons Plaintiff John Baccus . . .
equal protection of the laws”).
these general and conclusory objections direct the Court to a
specific error in the Magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations and are therefore not specific objections
which would warrant de novo review. Nowhere in
Plaintiff's objections does he reference or cite to the
Magistrate Judge's reasoning for requesting dismissal of
his motion for emergency injunction. He does however cite to
the Magistrate Judge's prior report recommending
dismissal of the complaint. (ECF No. 59 ¶ 12).
Accordingly, he fails to direct the court to a specific error
in the Report at issue.
a majority of Plaintiff s “objections” have
already been addressed in the prior proceedings and the
Court's Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Accordingly, repetitions of prior arguments the Magistrate
Judge has already addressed and citations to legal authority
are not enough to constitute a specific objection. See
Workman, 2017 WL 4791150, at *1; Orpiano, 687
F.2d at 47. In the absence of specific objections to portions
of the Report, this Court is not required to give an
explanation for adopting the ...