Evans v. York County Inc et al

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 03/29/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Reginald Evans,

C/A No. 0:15-4954-JFA

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
York County, Inc.; City of Rock Hill,
Inc.; B.H. Management; Paces River
Apartment; Clifford Berinsky; Thomas
I. Howard; Brownlee Law Firm, PLLC;
Dina D. Biggs; Alyssa Pruitt; and Land
Star Transportation Logistic, Inc.,
Defendants.

Reginald Evans (“Plaintiff”) filed this pro se action for seeking compensatory damages
and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff sues York County, City of Rock Hill, B.H.
Management, Paces River Apartment (“Paces River”), Magistrate Judge Clifford Berinsky
(“Berinsky”), Thomas I. Howard, Brownlee Law Firm, PLLC, Dina D. Biggs, Alyssa Pruitt, and
Land Star Transportation Logistic, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), alleging a violation of his
constitutional rights.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss this case without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 10). The Report sets forth in

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (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).

detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this court incorporates those
facts and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on January 7, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response to the report on February 8, 2016, but failed to
make any specific objections to the report. (ECF No. 12). Instead of making specific objections,
Plaintiff merely stated that he did not receive the Report until January 15, 2016, which he claims
clearly violated his rights to due process and equal protection. 2 In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, 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. 10). Plaintiff’s case is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 29, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

The Magistrate’s Report was entered on the Docket on January 7, 2016. Objections to the Report were
due January 25, 2016. Even assuming that Plaintiff received the Report on January 15, 2016, this was
in no way a violation of his Constitutional rights. This Court accepted his “objections” on February 8,
2016, which was two weeks after the January 25, 2016 due date. In sum, Plaintiff received more than
enough time to file specific objections to a six (6) page Report. Plaintiff actually had more time to
object to the Report than he should have had even if he had received the Report when it was docketed
on January 7, 2016.
2