Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Franklin v. Franklin

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

October 11, 2019

Angela Elaine Franklin, Gloria Diane Franklin, and Zantene Franklin, Plaintiffs,
v.
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.

          ORDER

          R. BRYAN HARWELL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.[1] See ECF No. 10.

         Standard of Review

         The 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).

         The 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).

         Discussion [2]

         Plaintiff 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.

         Ms. 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.

         Conclusion

         For the 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 process.[3]

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.