Jones v. Clawson et al

Filing 73

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court adopts the magistrate's R&R. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Merrill's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 18 is GRANTED; Defendants Clawson, Jeffcoat, and Randle's Motion for Summary Judgment 55 is GRANTED; and this case is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all outstanding motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/30/2012. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Dwight Xavier Jones,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Sgt. Clawson, Lexington County Detention )
Center; C/O Johnathan Jeffcoat, Lexington )
County Detention Center; C/O Randle,
)
Lexington County Detention Center; and
)
Jason Merrill, Cayce Public Safety,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 5:11-cv-01533-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights.
This matter is before the Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West1 [R&R, Doc. # 69.] In the R&R, the
magistrate recommends that the Court grant Defendant Merrill’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim [Doc. # 18], and grant Defendants Clawson, Jeffcoat, and Randle’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. # 55]. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on July 27, 2012. [ Obj., Doc.
# 71.]
Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The district court

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C. , this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge West for pretrial handling.

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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The district court is obligated to conduct 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 court
to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Discussion
The Court reiterates that it may only consider objections to the R&R that direct this Court
to a specific error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th
Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn.1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have . . . held
de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendation.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, in the
absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
This Court has reviewed the two-page submission that Plaintiff styles as his “objections,”
and they are without merit. Plaintiff merely claims that the facts “spoke for itself,” and then proceeds
to generally allege racism. [Obj., Doc. # 71.] Plaintiff fails to take issue with any finding in the
R&R. [Id.] Accordingly, none of the objections offered by Petitioner meet the applicable standard

2

set above as they contain no basis for the objections or contain no additional legal argument beyond
what is found in Petitioner’s pleadings.
In light of the Petitioner’s failure to assert any specific objections to the R&R, this Court is
not required to respond to his statements because “a district judge should not have to guess what
arguments an objecting party depends on when reviewing a magistrate’s report.” See Monahan v.
Burtt, No. CIVA 205-2201-RBH, 2006 WL 2796390, at *9 (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2006) (quoting Lockert
v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988)). The issues in this case were correctly addressed
by the magistrate and this Court will not address the issues a second time.
Conclusion
The Court has thoroughly analyzed the entire record, including the R&R, objections to the
R&R, and the applicable law. The Court has further conducted the required review of all of
Petitioner’s objections and finds them without merit. For the reasons stated above and by the
magistrate, the Court hereby overrules all of Petitioner’s objections and adopts the magistrate’s
R&R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Merrill’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim [Doc. # 18] is GRANTED; Defendants Clawson, Jeffcoat, and Randle’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 55] is GRANTED ; and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all outstanding motions are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
July 30, 2012

3