Opinion
C/A No. 6:18-1744-JFA-KFM
08-07-2018
Garrin David Smith, Plaintiff, v. County of Greenville and United States, Defendants.
ORDER
The pro se Plaintiff, Garrin David Smith ("Plaintiff"), filed this civil action against the County of Greenville and the United States on June 25, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for Review.
"Pro se complaints and pleadings, however inartfully pleaded, must be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Ally v. Yadkin Cty. Sheriff Dept., 698 F. App'x 141, 142 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
Because the Complaint was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court is charged with screening Plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if, after being liberally construed, it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation ("Report") and opines that this action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 13 p. 5). The 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.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). --------
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on July 6, 2018. (ECF No. 13). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by July 20, 2018. Id. However, Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report.
A 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. Va. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate'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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13). Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED. August 7, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge