United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
Lyndale Gaddy (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner
proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and the
Federal Torts Claims Act alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1). After filing his
Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under
28 U.S.C. § 1915. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the
case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
reviewing the motion, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this
action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that
Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP should be denied. (ECF
No. 11). The 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 July 31,
2019. (ECF No. 14). Thus, this matter is ripe
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 Judge'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).
the Report, the Magistrate Judge states that Plaintiff is
barred from proceeding IFP due to the “three
strikes” rule contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded that Plaintiff has filed at least three prior
lawsuits which count as “strikes” under this
1. Gaddy v. U.S. District Court Columbia, No.
0:18-cv-1445, ECF No. 15 (D.S.C. July 9, 2018) (strike
because case dismissed as frivolous), aff'd, 745
Fed.Appx. 507 (4th Cir. 2018);
2. Gaddy v. State of South Carolina, No.
0:16-cv-1335, ECF No. 20 (D.S.C. Aug. 9, 2016) (strike