Jones v. Ford et al

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 11 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 03/20/2013. (bshr, )

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

Jamie J. Jones,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
H. Ford; Betty White Burton; USAA
)
Insurance Company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:13-187-JFA-PJG

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Jamie J. Jones, filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying
the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. The complaint consists of a variety
of claims alleging that the plaintiff was injured when defendant Burton ran over part of his
body with an automobile, and that defendant Ford gave the plaintiff a traffic ticket relating
to the incident.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that the plaintiff’s complaint should be summarily
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation

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 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

and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on February 28, 2013. However, the
plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge properly concludes that this court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to plead any
recognizable factual or legal basis for any discernable cause of action as is required under
Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is proper and is
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

March 20, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2