Teasley v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 5/13/15. (chub, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Regenia McQueen Teasley,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:14-cv-4862-PMD-BM
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15). Following pre-service review, the Magistrate Judge issued the
R&R on April 24, 2015, recommending that this Court summarily dismiss, without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process, Plaintiff Regenia McQueen Teasley’s (“Plaintiff”)
Complaint (ECF No. 1). On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R (ECF No. 18).
The Court has carefully reviewed and considered the entire record, including Plaintiff’s
Objections, and finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the relevant
facts and applied the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R and incorporates it into this Order.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). Parties are allowed to make a
written objection to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within
fourteen days after being served a copy of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is
charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which a specific
objection is registered, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the R&R’s findings and

recommendations in whole or in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive additional
evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure
to object is accepted as an agreement with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147–48 (1985). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection—or as
to those portions of the R&R to which no specific objection is made—this Court “must ‘only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee note); see also Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (“Courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary
in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”).
Moreover, absent specific objections, this Court need not provide any explanation for adopting
the magistrate judge’s analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–
200 (4th Cir. 1983). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to
further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the
district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984).
In the present case, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R are not specific.
Notably, Plaintiff’s Objections fail to identify any specific error committed by the Magistrate
Judge. Instead, Plaintiff merely reasserts, restates, and reargues the allegations set forth in her
Complaint. Accordingly, such objections lack the requisite specificity under Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to trigger, or otherwise invite, de novo review. See Diamond,
416 F.3d at 315–16. Therefore, the Court, which has “satisf[ied] itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record,” id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee note) (internal

2

quotation marks omitted), accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and fully incorporates
it into this Order.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.

It is

THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 13, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

3