Fuce v. Fuce

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION JOSEPH FUCE U, § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-3053-MGL § JOSEPH FUCE JR., § Defendant. § ~ ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. AND DISMISSING THE MATTER WITH PREJUDICE, WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND, AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS Plaintiff Joseph Fuce II (Fuce) filed this action against Defendant Joseph Fuce Jr. Fuce is representing himself. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court this matter be dismissed with prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which specific objection is made, and the Court 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).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on April 23, 2025, and Fuce filed his “Notice of Conditional Acceptance and the Request for Court Clarification on May 1, 2025.” The Court will liberally construe this document as his objections to the Report. The Court has carefully reviewed the objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.

In Fuce’s objections, he states “the [M]agistrate [J]udge’s report and recommendation is clearly erroneous and contrary to law[.]” Objections at 3. The rest of the objections are questions coupled with both sensical and nonsensical statements. Here, Fuce wholly failed to bring any specific objections to the Report. As per the law of the Fourth Circuit, this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the record “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.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.

1982). The Court is required to review the Report and Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of specific objections. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005) (stating that “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 to accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court has gone ahead and conducted a de novo review of the record in this case. Inasmuch as the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s cogent analysis of this matter, which the Magistrate Judge sets forth in her comprehensive and well-reasoned Report, it need not

repeat her discussion here. Suffice it to say, because Fuce neglects to make any specific objections to the Report, and the Court has failed to find any defect in the Report, the Court will overrule Fuce’s non-specific objections and accept the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation as to the disposition of this case. Further, inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Fuce of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 9, he has waived appellate review. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding general objections are insufficient to preserve appellate review).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Fuce’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 13th day of May, 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Fuce is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.