United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Angela Elaine Franklin, Gloria Diane Franklin, and Zantene Franklin, Plaintiffs,
Christopher Jermaine Franklin, Demetrius Kinta Franklin, Janice Marie Franklin, Watkins Garrett Woods Funeral Home, Greenville Housing Authority, Tower East, Rest Haven, United Ministries, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Greenville Summary Court, Defendants.
BRYAN HARWELL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for review of a Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) entered by
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, who recommends summarily
dismissing this action without prejudice. See ECF
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).
Angela Elaine Franklin, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed a civil complaint containing various
allegations that are thoroughly summarized in the R & R.
See R & R at pp. 1-2 (citing ECF Nos. 1, 1-1,
& 7). The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily
dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See R & R at pp. 3-5.
Franklin filed three documents after the R & R was
entered, see ECF Nos. 15, 16, & 18, but she did
not specifically object to the Magistrate Judge's
conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action. See Diamond & Camby,
supra (stating that absent a specific objection, the
Court need only review the R & R for clear error and need
not give reasons for adopting it). In any event, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking and therefore dismissal is warranted.
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 10] and
DISMISSES this action without
prejudice and without issuance and service of
 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