United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge
matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff
Clara Lewis Brockington's objections to the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers, III, who recommends summarily dismissing
this case with prejudice. See ECF Nos. 23 & 25.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it 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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
filed this action alleging a storage company and its
employees discriminated against her by terminating a storage
contract and auctioning her personal belongings without
notice. Previously, the Magistrate Judge-mindful of Goode
v. Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, Inc., 807 F.3d
619 (4th Cir. 2015)-entered two orders recognizing
Plaintiff's possible intention to assert a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and giving her two opportunities to amend
the complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim
under § 1981. See ECF Nos. 8, 13, 16, & 18.
However, none of Plaintiff's three complaints (including
the operative Second Amended Complaint, see ECF No.
18) plausibly allege a § 1981 claim. Thus, the
Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing this action
with prejudice. See R & R at pp. 4-5 & n.1;
see generally Matousek v. Wal-Mart, 763 Fed.Appx.
329, 330 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that under
Goode, a district court may dismiss a complaint with
prejudice when the court has already afforded the plaintiff
an opportunity to amend).
has filed objections to the R & R, see ECF No.
25, but she does not specifically object to the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion that her Second Amended Complaint does
not plausibly allege a § 1981 claim. Although her
objections provide additional factual allegations (including
that she “is an African American, light complexion,
female, ” id. at p. 3), the Second Amended
Complaint-not the objections-remains the operative pleading
and does not plausibly allege a § 1981 claim. See,
e.g., Cty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S.
44, 48 (1991) (“[T]he District Court accepted for
filing a second amended complaint, which is the operative
pleading here.”); see generally Cleveland v.
Duvall, No. 8:14-cv-04305-RBH, 2015 WL 6549287, at *2
(D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2015) (explaining “new factual
allegations are not properly considered in the context of an
objection to an R & R”), aff'd, 647
Fed.Appx. 156 (4th Cir. 2016). Also, as noted above, the
Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff two opportunities to file an
amended complaint by issuing two detailed orders explaining
the deficiencies in her complaints, but Plaintiff still
failed to cure those deficiencies. A third opportunity to
amend would encourage an endless cycle of amendments and
delay. See Harless v. CSX Hotels, Inc., 389 F.3d
444, 447 (4th Cir. 2004) (explaining amendment may be denied
based on a plaintiff's “repeated failure to cure a
deficiency by amendments previously allowed”). However,
the Court in its discretion will modify the R & R and
dismiss this action without prejudice to
Plaintiff's ability to file another complaint in a new
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS AS
MODIFIED the Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF
No. 23], and DISMISSES this case without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). The Court is mindful of
its duty to liberally construe pro se filings. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (recognizing
“[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed” (internal quotation marks omitted)). But
see United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir.
2012) (“Although courts must liberally construe the
claims of pro se litigants, the special judicial
solicitude with which a district court should view pro se