Bracey et al v. Horry County Council et al
ORDER RULING ON 82 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Because Plaintiff has filed the fully signed signature page of the complaint within the time for filing objections, the Court will recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge in accordance with the R & R 82 . The Court RECOMMITS this matter to the Magistrate Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 06/07/2017.(dsto)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Horry County Council, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-00399-RBH-TER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (R
& R) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III.1 See ECF Nos. 82 & 87.
Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a
de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it 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 Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report
to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when
a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error
in the [M]agistrate [Judge]’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of timely filed specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
The M agistrate Judge submitted the R & R to this Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and
the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge issued three separate orders directing Plaintiff to bring this case into
proper form by signing the complaint. R & R at 1 (citing ECF Nos. 8, 16, & 49). Because Plaintiff
failed to fully comply with those three orders, the Magistrate Judge entered the instant R & R
recommending dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at
2. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge recommended recommitting this matter to him if Plaintiff filed
the fully signed signature page of the complaint within the time for filing objections. Id.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R & R and attached a copy of his complaint containing
a signed signature page.2 See ECF Nos. 87 & 87-1 at 164. Because Plaintiff has filed the fully signed
signature page of the complaint within the time for filing objections, the Court will recommit this matter
to the Magistrate Judge in accordance with the R & R.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMITS this matter to the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
June 7, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Plaintiff also filed a “Motion for Leave of the Court to File Electronically.” ECF No. 87-1 at 2–3. The
Court denies this motion for the reasons stated in the M agistrate Judge’s prior orders denying similar requests. See
ECF Nos. 8, 9, & 48.
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?