Williams v. McAngus Goudelock and Courie LLC

Filing 17

ORDER: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 13 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 08/21/2018. (lsut, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Randy Williams,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
McAngus Goudelock and Courie LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:18-cv-00558-RBH

ORDER

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. 13
& 15. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s pro se 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report
1

The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 (D.S.C.), and she reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without limits.
Gordon directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not require those courts to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them.”).

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 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).
Discussion2
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint seeking to sue his former employer’s law firm
for alleged defamation stemming from his state workers’ compensation action. See ECF No. 1. The
Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See R & R at pp. 3–7. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concludes there is neither
diversity nor federal question jurisdiction over this action. See id.; see generally 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction).
Plaintiff has filed objections, but he does not specifically object to the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Diamond & Camby,
supra (stating that absent a specific objection, the Court need only review the R & R for clear error and
need not give reasons for adopting it). Instead, Plaintiff rehashes and supplements the allegations in
his complaint. Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for this Court to deviate from the Magistrate
Judge’s recommended disposition, and therefore the Court will adopt the R & R.

2

The R & R thoroughly summarizes the factual and procedural background of this case, as well as the
applicable legal standards.

2

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No.
13] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice3 and without issuance and service of process.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
August 21, 2018

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

3

See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185
(4th Cir. 2013) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court, having
determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the
underlying claims.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).
4

In the Court’s view, Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in his complaint by mere amendment. 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.

3