Aderinto v. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 13 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the case without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 09/02/08. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA G r a c e F. Aderinto, ) ) P l a i n t if f , ) v. ) ) Treasury Inspector General for Tax ) A d m in is tra tio n ; Ms. Cindy McIntyre; ) M s. Barbosa; Ms. Jones; Customer ) S e rv ice , IRS; All South Federal Credit ) U n io n , ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) _________________________________ ) C/A No.: 3:08-2206-JFA-BM

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Grace F. Aderinto, brings this action asserting claims against v a rio u s defendants. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a

c o m p r e h e n siv e Report and Recommendation wherein he suggests summary dismissal of the c a s e without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because plaintiff's a lleg a tio n s are duplicative and frivolous. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts a n d standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. T h e plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report and

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

1

R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on July 9, 2008. She timely filed o b je c tio n s to the Report on July 9, 2008 and July 17, 2008 [dkt. #16, 17]. In her objections to the Report, the plaintiff merely raises the same issues already addressed by the Magistrate Ju d g e and make other incoherent allegations that do not require response by the court.2 A f te r carefully reviewing the applicable law, the record in this case, the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , and the plaintiff's objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate J u d g e 's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct p rin c ip le s of law. The court, therefore, adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in full and incorporates this Report by specific reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. T h e clerk is instructed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

S ep tem b er 2, 2008 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. However, the district 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 Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 *(4th Cir. 1982). In 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 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005).

2

2