Brett v. Blume et al
ORDER adopting 6 Report and Recommendation to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 5/20/19.(mflo, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robin Blume; Joe Biden; Jill Biden,
C/A No. 3:19-1134-JFA-SVH
The pro se plaintiff brings that action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising various
unintelligible allegations discussing events spanning a period of approximately 25 years.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action without
prejudice because the complaint fails to state a federal cause of action. The Magistrate Judge
also suggests that the plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of his complaint and amendment
would be futile. 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 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).
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on April 19, 2019 (ECF No. 6).
However, the plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now
expired. 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 court must “only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws and the record in this case, this court
accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and finds that that the Report
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
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
May 20, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina
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?