Brett v. Blume et al

Filing 9

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, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Frank Brett, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) Robin Blume; Joe Biden; Jill Biden, ) ) Defendants. ______________________________________ ) C/A No. 3:19-1134-JFA-SVH ORDER 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. 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 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 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?