Brunson v. United States District Court et al

Filing 19

ORDER this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance andservice of process; adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 12/8/11.(mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Ronald Brunson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
United States District Court, District of )
South Carolina;
)
Central “Intelligent” Agency;
)
Federal Bureau of Investigation;
)
Steve Patterson, Intercity Broadcasting; )
NAACP, National Association
)
Advancement Colored People;
)
State Executive Director, NAACP;
)
President Ruby Johnson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 3:11-cv-2313-JFA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Ronald Brunson, brings this civil action against the named
defendants. In his Complaint and his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes a variety of
allegations against the defendants and asks this court to grant him one trillion dollars in
damages, clemency, and removal of the “internal machine” installed in his body. (ECF
No. 7 at 17). Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff’s complaint should be summarily

1

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 and Recommendation to which

1

dismissed without service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Report sets forth
in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates
such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on September 30, 2011. Rather than
filing objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, on October 6,
2011, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal
neither serves as Objections to the Report and Recommendation, nor does it raise any
cognizable objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the Notice of Appeal, the
plaintiff merely raises more factual allegations, which he has already raised in his
Complaint and his Amended Complaint. In the absence of specific objections to the
Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to given any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The
Report is incorporated herein by reference.

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 8, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District J 

3