Brown v. Columbia, City of et al

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation, dismissing case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 6/5/2024. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Floyd E. Brown,

C/A No. 3:24-cv-884-JFA-PJG
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER
City of Columbia; City of Columbia Police
Department; David Hatcher; Stacy Harris;
Shawn McNichols; Theresa Wilson,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Floyd E. Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The
Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915; § 1915A. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the
Magistrate Judge for initial review.
After performing an initial review of the complaint, the Magistrate Judge assigned
to this action notified Plaintiff of several deficiencies and gave him an opportunity to
amend his pleadings. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as
instructed but did file supplements to his original complaint. Thereafter, the Magistrate
Judge conducted a review of the complaint and supplements pursuant to the procedural
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321 (1996), including 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and prepared a thorough

Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 22). Within the Report, the Magistrate
Judge opines the Complaint fails to state a viable claim and is subject to summary
dismissal. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on April 12, 2024. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by
April 26, 2024. Id. Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has
elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report
and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s

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(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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).

Complaint is subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 22). Consequently, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 5, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge