Taylor v. Taylor et al

Filing 23

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process and that a 'strike' be entered. Signed by Honorable Matthew J Perry, Jr on 05/05/2011.(vdou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Thomas L. Taylor,
a/k/a Thomas Leon Taylor

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Henry Taylor and Gloria C. Taylor, )
)
Defendants,
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:10-3177-MJP-PJG

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a Report and Recommendation submitted on
February 10, 2011 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom it was referred
for review under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court=s Local Rules. In the underlying
action, Plaintiff Thomas L. Taylor (APlaintiff@), proceeding pro se, seeks monetary and
injunctive relief from his Grandfather Henry Taylor and step-grandmother Gloria C. Taylor
alleging that they unlawfully took social security benefits money away from him. Plaintiff
specifically asserts claims against the Defendants for committing “the crime of forgery,”
stripping him of his “equal liberties,” and subjecting him to “cruel and unjust acts of
punishments” and “mental anguishes.” In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action against the Defendants on December 15, 2010. The
instant Complaint is nearly identical to a previous Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 29, 2003.

See Taylor v. Taylor, Civil Action No. 3:03-cv-01362-MJP (D.S.C. filed April 29, 2003). This
Court summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s prior Complaint and that decision was not appealed by
Plaintiff. Taylor v. Taylor, Civil Action No. 3:03-cv-01362-MJP, Docket No. 6 (D.S.C. filed
May 27, 2003).
In the instant matter, Plaintiff makes essentially the same allegations and requests the
same relief from the Defendants as in his prior Complaint. Under established local procedure in
this judicial district, a careful review was made of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint pursuant to the
procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 On February 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and frivolousness.2
Thereafter, Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Magistrate=s Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198 (4th Cir. 1983).
II. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration of the record and for the reasons stated by the Magistrate
Judge, the Court approves the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, this action is

1

Section 1915 permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the
administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute
allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted,” “is frivolous or malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).

2

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew J. Perry, Jr.
MATTHEW J. PERRY, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
May 5, 2011

3