Littles v. County of Williamsburg Detention Center

Filing 16

ORDER accepting the 12 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 8/22/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Dwight A. Littles, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
County of Williamsburg Detention
)
Center; Nadia Pressley; Stephen Gardner; )
Williamsburg Sheriff’s Office; Verney
)
Cumbee; and Ofc. Pamela J. Wrenn,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-03360-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’
(“Magistrate Judge”) Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed on January 1, 2018 (ECF No.
12). The Report addresses Plaintiff Dwight A. Littles’ Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and recommends that the court dismiss the action without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) For the reasons stated herein, the court ACCEPTS the
Report and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates
herein without a full recitation. (Id.) As brief background, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed his Complaint on December 13, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by Defendants because he was
assaulted, discriminated against, denied medical treatment, and the victim of false testimony. (Id.

1

at 3-4.) On January 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and recommended the dismissal
of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 12 at 6.) The Report found that Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks
sufficient allegations against Nadia Pressley, Stephen Gardner, and Verney Cumbee; the
Williamsburg County Sheriff’s Office is protected by sovereign immunity; Wrenn is protected by
witness immunity; and the Williamsburg County Detention Center is not a “person” for purposes
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 3-6.) On that same day, Plaintiff was advised of the opportunity to file
a specific, written objection to the Report. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff filed an Objection on February 8,
2018. (ECF No. 14.) Defendants did not reply to the Report or Objection.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Objections to a Report must identify specific findings of the Report and state the basis for
objecting to those findings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the fact of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

2

advisory committee’s note). Failure to timely file a specific, written objection to a Report will
result in a waiver of the right to appeal from an order based upon a Report. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). If a party fails to properly object
because the objection lacks the requisite specificity, then de novo review by the court is not
required. See Suttles v. Chater, No. 96-2138, 1997 WL 76900, at *1 (holding that “general, nonspecific objections” are not sufficient when objecting to a magistrate judge’s recommendation)
(citing Howard v. Secretary, 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1985)).
The court is required to interpret pro se documents liberally and will hold those documents
to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147,
1151 (4th Cir. 1978); see also Hardin v. United States, C/A No. 7:12–cv–0118–GRA, 2012 WL
3945314, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012). Additionally, pro se documents must be construed in a
manner, “no matter how inartfully pleaded, to see whether they could provide a basis for relief.”
Garrett v. Elko, No. 95-7939, 1997 WL 457667, at *1 (4th Cir. 1997).
III. DISCUSSION
In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Aside from repeating previous allegations, Plaintiff’s Objection states: “I do object
[to] the recommendation.” (ECF No. 14 at 1.) This is a general objection that is insufficient for the
court to make a de novo determination. Suttles, 1997 WL 76900, at *1. Therefore, the court
concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report accurately summarizes the law and correctly applies

3

it to the instant case. (ECF No. 12 at 3-6.) Since no specific objections were filed by either party,
the court adopts the Report herein. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
IV. CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) and incorporates it herein. The
court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 22, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

4