Moseley v. Newman et al
ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that Plaintiff's complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 10/29/2013.(abuc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Judge Newman, Assist. Solicitor
Kimberly Barr, Assist. Sol. Secretary
Linda Woods, Public Defender M.
Amanda Shula, Verdell Barr, Former
Private Counsel, Sharon Staggers,
Arthur R. Moseley, aka Shahid Majid,
C/A No.: 0:13-cv-01680-GRA
This matter comes before this Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Paige J. Gossett’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, and filed on October 7,
2013. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff Arthur R. Moseley (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Florence
County Detention Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 19, 2013.1 ECF No. 1. Under established
procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge Gossett made a careful review of
the pro se complaint and now recommends that this Court summarily dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
ECF No. 25.
Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
For the reasons discussed herein, this Court adopts the
A pro se prisoner’s petition is deemed filed at the time that it is delivered to the prison mailroom to be
forwarded to the district court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). In the current case,
the earliest legible stamp on the envelope containing Plaintiff’s complaint is June 19, 2013.
Page 1 of 3
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in its entirety and summarily dismisses this
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court
may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions." Id.
In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the
objections must be timely filed and must specifically identify the portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir.
1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have .
. . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes
general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Page 2 of 3
The failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any
further right to appeal when the parties have been warned that they must object to
preserve appellate review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); see also
Carter v. Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). In the present
case, Plaintiff received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, which contained a
“Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.” ECF No. 25.
The Notice warned that “[f]ailure to timely file specific written objections . . . [results] in
waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation.” Id. October 24, 2013 was the deadline for filing objections. See
ECF No. 25. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 29 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?