Brown v. United States of America et al

Filing 24

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 3/21/2016.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Curtis J. Brown, # 238979,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
United States of America, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:15-cv-4065-PMD-MGB
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to United States Magistrate
Judge Mary Gordon Baker’s report and recommendation (“R & R”) that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s pro se complaint without prejudice and without service of process (ECF Nos. 21 &
18). For the reasons stated herein, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The R & R 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 may make written objections to
the R & R within fourteen days after being served with a copy of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R & R to which a specific objection is
made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations in whole or in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive more evidence or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is
taken as the party’s agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985). Absent a timely, 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’s note).
Pro se filings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, Gordon
v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and federal district courts must construe such
pleadings liberally to allow the development of potentially meritorious claims, see Hughes v.
Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam). The liberal construction requirement, however, does
not mean courts can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth claims cognizable in
federal district court. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
DISCUSSION
With one exception discussed below, Plaintiff’s objections merely rehash his complaint’s
frivolous assertions. The Court declines to address those arguments, as they are not proper
objections. See, e.g., Anderson v. Dobson, 627 F. Supp. 2d 619, 623 (W.D.N.C. 2007) (“An
‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that
term is used in this context.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). In addition, the Court has
considered the documents Plaintiff attached to his objections and finds that they are either
irrelevant or do not contradict anything in the R & R.
The only true objection the Court can discern is Plaintiff’s accusation that Magistrate
Judge Baker “lied” by writing in the R & R that in one of Plaintiff’s many prior lawsuits, he
“filed for habeas corpus § 2241 to the Supreme Court to violate [Plaintiff’s] Federal Probation.”
(R & R, ECF No. 18, at 2.) That sentence from the R & R is a quotation of Plaintiff’s own

2

complaint. Although the R & R misquotes one word, 1 that clearly was inadvertent. The Court
rejects Plaintiff’s accusation that Magistrate Judge Baker has lied.
The Court has reviewed the remainder of the R & R. Seeing nothing clearly erroneous,
the Court adopts the R & R, with the one substitution footnoted below.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED
and that the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 21, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

______________________________________________________________________________
1.
In the complaint, Plaintiff wrote “District Court,” not “Supreme Court.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 4.) Thus, the
Court replaces the word “Supreme” on page 2 of the R & R with “District.”

3