Andrews v. P.M.I. Southern States

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: January 31, 2024
• Docket: 7:23-cv-06289
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION

Braxton D Andrews, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:23-cv-06289-TMC ) vs. ) ORDER ) P.M.I. Southern States, Judge James D ) Willingham, III, and Amy W Cox, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) _________________________________)

Pro se Plaintiff Braxton D Andrews, proceeding in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 10), filed this action on December 6, 2023. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. The magistrate judge issued a proper form order granting Plaintiff twenty-one days in which to bring the case into proper form. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff subsequently filed additional documentation, and, on January 11, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”), recommending the undersigned dismiss the action without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 15). The Report notified Plaintiff of his right to file objections thereto. Id. at 15. It was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided to the court, (ECF No. 17), but has not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff is, therefore, presumed to have received it. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report and the time in which to do so has expired. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed. App’x

327, 330–31 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)); see also Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection’” and “‘an objection stating only “I object” preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.

2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (quoting Lockert, 843 F.2d at 1019); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017). Thus, having reviewed the Report and finding no clear error, the court agrees with, and wholly ADOPTS, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 15), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina January 31, 2024

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.