Johnson v. McKnight et al

Filing 63

ORDER adopting and incorporating 60 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, 27 55 ; and dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/8/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION REGINA DENISE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. RAYMOND MITCHELL and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendants. § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-895-MGL-SVH § § § § § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff Regina Denise Johnson is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant Raymond Mitchell’s and Defendant United States of America’s motions to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 30, 2017, and the Clerk of Court entered Plaintiff's objections on November 7, 2017. The Court has considered the objections, but holds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly. In Plaintiff’s objections, she states “I. Regina Johnson: still strongly deny the motion for dismissal of a trial for Mrs. Kenyetta McKnight, and Mr. Mark A. Turner, and Mr. Raymond M. Mitchell. I’m also strongly requesting a Court Hearing and a Jury Trial.” Objections 1. The Court notes the Magistrate Judge entered an Order on October 11, 2017, substituting the United States of America as a party defendant in the place of McKnight and Turner. ECF No. 49. Above is the entirety of Plaintiff’s objections. She fails to make any specific objections to the Report. In such a situation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review inasmuch as Plaintiff makes only general and conclusory objections, which fail to direct the Court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's Report. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47–48 (4th Cir. 1982). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standards set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 8th day of November, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2

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?