Burris v. Bryant et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that the Complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/3/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
David Clinton Burris,
Plaintiff,
v.
York County; South Carolina
Sheriff Bruce Bryant; and York
County Detention Center,
Defendants.
_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 1:13-582-TMC
OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff, David Clinton Burris (“Plaintiff”), an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a
Magistrate Judge. On March 28, 2013, Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a Report
and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the Complaint be summarily dismissed
without issuance and service of process.

(ECF No. 9).

The Magistrate Judge provided

Plaintiff a notice advising him of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 9 at 7).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report on May 21, 2012. (ECF. No. 12).
The

Magistrate

Judge

makes

only

a

recommendation

to

the

court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged
with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the 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 magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific
objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Complaint be summarily dismissed
without issuance and service of process based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. As
noted above, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report which the Court has carefully reviewed.
However, the Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for this court to deviate from the Magistrate
Judge’s recommended disposition.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the
standard set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly,
the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the
Complaint is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
May 3, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and
4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2