Gaddy v. US District Court Columbia et al

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 9 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed as frivolous and without issuance and service of process. This action is hereby deemed a "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/9/2018. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, #323551,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
U.S. District Court Columbia; SC Attorney
)
General’s Office; Clerk of Court Jeff
)
Hammond; Mrs. Jacquelyn D. Austin;
)
South Carolina State Attorney General,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

C/A No.: 0:18-1445-JFA

ORDER

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 25, 2018. (ECF No. 1). On June 19, 2018, the

1

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).

1

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 9).
Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report on June 27, 2018. (ECF No. 13).
Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action2 prepared a thorough Report and

Recommendation, recommending the Court dismiss this action as frivolous and without
issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 9 p. 13). Additionally, the Magistrate
recommended that this action be deemed a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id.
(ECF No. 41). 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.
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 Magistrate’s
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Thus, the Court
must only review those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has made a specific
2

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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).

2

written objection. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir.
2005).
“An objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge to focus attention on those
issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.’” Dunlap v. TM
Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, No. 0:15-cv-04009-JMC, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6
(D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2017) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73
F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)). A specific objection to the Magistrate’s Report thus
requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the Complaint or a mere citation to
legal authorities. See Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv-00765-RBH, 2017 WL 4791150, at
*1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection must “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).
“Generally stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would a failure
to object.” Staley v. Norton, No. 9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar.
2, 2007) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th
Cir. 1991)). The Court reviews portions “not objected to—including those portions to
which only ‘general and conclusory’ objections have been made—for clear error.” Id.
(emphasis added) (citing Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Orpiano,
687 F.2d at 47).
III.

ANALYSIS
In his Objection to the Magistrate’s Report, Plaintiff has made no specific
3

objections. See (ECF No. 13). To the contrary, Plaintiff merely cites to legal authorities,
makes conclusory allegations, and reasserts arguments from his Complaint. See id.
Without specific objections to the Report, this Court is not required to give an
explanation for adopting the Magistrate’s recommendation. See Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
IV.

CONCLUSION
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 Magistrate’s recommendation (ECF No. 9). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint is
dismissed as frivolous and without issuance and service of process. Additionally, this
action is hereby deemed a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 9, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

4