Blackstock v. Pee Dee Mental Health
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION : The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 9 ], and DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/23/2017. (lsut)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sepia Vonnetta Blackstock, )
Pee Dee Mental Health,
Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-02055-RBH
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West.1 See ECF Nos. 9
& 12. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice. R & R at p. 7.
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
The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
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 specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews 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).
In her complaint and related filings, Plaintiff alleges Defendant refused to provide her with a
copy of her medical records when she asked for them, thereby violating the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”),3 the Privacy Act of 1974,4 and the South Carolina
Physicians’ Patient Records Act.5 See ECF Nos. 1, 1-2, & 1-3. The Magistrate Judge recommends
summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because (1) she cannot sue Defendant under these laws and
(2) there is no diversity jurisdiction. See R & R at pp. 4–7.
Although Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R, see ECF No. 12, she fails to specifically
object to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations summarized above.6 Thus,
the Court has reviewed the R & R for clear error and found none, and will therefore adopt it. See
Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 199–200. See also McCray v. Columbia Care Ctr., No.
The R & R summarizes the factual and procedural background of this case, as well as the applicable legal
Pub. L. No. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (codified primarily in Titles 18, 26, and 42 of the United States
5 U.S.C. § 552a.
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44–115–10 through –160 (2018).
Instead, Plaintiff has provided “additional factual content” supplementing the allegations in her original
complaint. See ECF No. 12. Even with these new factual allegations, the complaint would still fail to set forth a
claim currently cognizable in this federal Court.
CA 3:09-1872-RBH, 2009 WL 3839467 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2009) (summarily dismissing a similar action
where the plaintiff claimed the defendant did not provide him a copy of his medical records); Krug v.
Stonerock, No. CA 4:11-3297-CMC-JRM, 2011 WL 6982226 (D.S.C. Dec. 19, 2011), adopted by, 2012
WL 88084 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2012) (same).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts and incorporates
by reference the R & R [ECF No. 9], and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
October 23, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
As indicated in Footnote 6 above, Plaintiff argues in her objections that “additional factual content” supports
her claims that a lack of medical records hindered her ability to recover from an illness and that she received
improper medical care. However, as explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has no private cause of action under
federal law for this alleged conduct; and there is no diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction. In the Court’s
view, Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in her complaint by amending it. See Goode v. Cent. Virginia Legal Aid Soc’y,
Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015). The Court therefore declines to automatically give Plaintiff leave to amend
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?