Gladney v. Greenberg et al

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/17/2018. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
THOMAS GLADNEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STANLEY GREENBERG, M.D., and
SAFDAR H. ARASTU, M.D.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION 3:18-667-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
Plaintiff Thomas Gladney, who is proceeding pro se, filed this as a personal injury/medical
malpractice action. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the complaint be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 April 5, 2018. On, April 16, 2018, the Clerk
entered Gladney’s objections. The Court has carefully reviewed the objections, but holds them to
be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
The Magistrate Judge states in the Report the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter
inasmuch as (1) Gladney “has not alleged a claim arising under the Constitution or federal statutes,”
and (2) according to Gladney, he and one of the defendants are both residents of South Carolina.
ECF No. 15 at 5. Hence, the Court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Gladney’s
conclusory statement “the Court has jurisdiction[,]” ECF No. 20 at 1, is an insufficient basis to make
it so.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court overrules the objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of April 2018 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the
date of this Order pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2