Richard Vandale Clowney v. S.C.D.C.

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 0:24-cv-06381
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Es calla 5 aw IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION RICHARD VANDALE CLOWNEY, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § Civil Action No. 0:24-6381-MGL § S.C.D.C., § Defendant. § AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND DEEMING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY Plaintiff Richard Vandale Clowney (Clowney), who is representing himself, filed this civil action against Defendant S.C.D.C., alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court summarily dismiss this case without prejudice 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 December 30, 2024. Clowney failed to file any objections, so the Court adopted the Report and summarily dismissed this case without prejudice.

The Court subsequently granted Clowney’s motion for an extension of time within which to file objections to the Report. On March 14, 2025, the Clerk of Court docketed Clowney’s objections. Having carefully reviewed the objections, the Court holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. Here, Clowney has failed to present any specific objections to the Report. Clowney’s objections neglect to reference the Report at all and merely repeat allegations the Magistrate Judge properly considered, addressed, and rejected. To the extent Clowney has brought any new arguments in his objections, they are conclusory and so lacking in merit as make any discussion of them unnecessary. The Court will thus overrule his objections.

Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the Report and the record de novo. Suffice it to say, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of Clowney’s amended complaint in the Report. Further, inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Clowney of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 7, 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 under the standards set forth above, the Court overrules Clowney’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this case is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process. As a result of this ruling, Clowney’s motion for discovery is necessarily DEEMED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 9th day of December 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Clowney is hereby notified of his 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.