United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se plaintiff, William Jones, commenced this
action seeking relief for alleged violations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Plaintiff is an inmate in Arizona and has asserted
this action against multiple defendants including several BOP
institutions in various states. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), the
case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
reviewing all pleadings in this action, the Magistrate Judge
assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that the
District of South Carolina is not the appropriate venue for
this action and this case should be transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. (ECF
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 October 28,
2019. (ECF No. 22). 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 Judge'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).
“objections” contain no arguments that could be
considered a specific objection to the Report. Moreover,
these objections fail to reference any portion of the Report
or reasoning provided by the Magistrate Judge. Instead,
Plaintiff merely voices his frustration with the Magistrate
Judge and Federal Judiciary in general. None of these general
and conclusory statements direct the Court to a specific
error in the Magistrate Judge'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 recommending a transfer
to the appropriate venue.
absence of specific objections to portions of the Report,
this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See
Camby, 718 F.2d at 199. Thus, Plaintiff's objections
are not specific and do not warrant de novo review.
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, the Report, and the objections thereto, this Court
finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct
principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and
incorporates herein by reference. (ECF No. 18). ...