Evans v. York County Inc et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Adopting 43 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 35 Amended Complaint filed by Reginald Evans. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/2/17. (mflo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
C/A No. 0:15-4954-JFA
York County, Inc. and Rock Hill, Inc.,
Reginald Evans (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an amended
complaint against York County, Inc. and Rock Hill, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), alleging a
violation of his constitutional rights.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss this amended complaint
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 43). 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.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on December 29, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response to the report on January 18, 2017. (ECF No. 45).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
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).
specific objections are 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). However, 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. Virginia Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the
Report of the Magistrate, 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).
Plaintiff’s sole objection is “[t]he Amended complaint did contain sufficient factual matter
the court should be accepted as true until defendants can prove otherwise.” (ECF No. 45)(errors in
original). This objection is without merit. The Magistrate Judge correctly applied the liberal
construction standard required in pro se cases when analyzing the claims set forth in the amended
complaint. (ECF No. 43 p. 3-6). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the
amended complaint “fails to identify the actions specifically taken by each of the Defendants.”
(ECF No. 43 p. 3). Therefore, the amended complaint must be dismissed.
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. 43). Plaintiff’s case is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 2, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?