Garner v. Cohen et al
ORDER accepting 24 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. Plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 6/19/2017.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
David Lee Garner,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00561-TLW
John Cohen, FBI Headquarters Director, et al.,
Plaintiff David Lee Garner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
against current and former federal officials alleging various violations of his constitutional rights.
ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of a Report and Recommendation
(R&R) filed on September 1, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, to whom this case
was assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), DSC. ECF No. 24. In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends summarily
dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Id.
Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on September 23, 2016, and December 28, 2016. ECF Nos.
27, 29. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the R&R and
the objections. After careful review of the R&R and the objections, for the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the R&R is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s
complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
June 19, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?