JONES v. SCOTLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Filing 36

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 17 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 10/7/2016. (Solomon, Dianne)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
TIMOTHY JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTLAND CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16CV1093

ORDER
The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the Court
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and, on September 13, 2016, was served on the parties
in this action. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff filed numerous documents after entry of the
Recommendation. (See ECF Nos. 19 through 35.) The Court has appropriately reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and, in light of Plaintiff’s numerous postRecommendation filings, the Court, out of an abundance of caution, has made a de novo
determination in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. 1 The Court therefore
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.
Section 636(b) provides that a federal district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Here, none of Plaintiff’s post-Recommendation filings
provide any specific objections to “findings or recommendations” in the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation. (See ECF Nos. 19 through 35.) Under these circumstances, the Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Recommendation. Littlejohn v. Qaddifi, Civ. Action No. 7:10-1122RBH, 2010 WL 2026673, at *1 (D.S.C. May 20, 2010) (unpublished) (concluding that “[t]he district
court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only general and conclusory objections
that do not direct the court to a specific error in the [m]agistrate [j]udge’s proposed findings and
recommendations” (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47–48 (4th Cir. 1982))). Nevertheless,
1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is filed and dismissed sua sponte
without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper § 1983 forms, which
corrects the defects cited in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. A Judgment dismissing
this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.
This, the 7th day of October, 2016.

/s/ Loretta C. Biggs
United States District Judge

the Court has conducted such a de novo review and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.
The Court further notes that none of the post-Recommendation filings correct the defects identified
in the Recommendation. (See ECF 17 at 1-2.) Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action
notwithstanding the post-Recommendation filings.

2