Jamison v. Craft et al

Filing 72

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 66 Report and Recommendation and 67 Report and Recommendation, granting 42 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, denying 33 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/7/2012. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Cecil Fitzgerald Jamison,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Commander A. Craft; Sargent L. Paige;
)
Detective D. Johnson; RSO Pelzer; S.O.
)
Ricahards, in their individual and official )
capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 5:11-cv-02246-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Cecil Fitzgerald Jamison (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented inmate housed at the South
Carolina Department of Correction’s (“SCDC’s”) Campbell Pre-Release Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants violated his right to be
free from illegal searches and seizures, that they used false information in obtaining a search
warrant, and that they have failed to return his seized property.1
This matter is before the Court after the issuance of two Reports and Recommendations
(“R&Rs”) of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett2 [R&Rs, Docs. # 66, 67.] In the first
R&R, the magistrate recommends that the Court deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc.
# 21] and Motion to Compel [Doc. # 33] filed by Plaintiff. [See Injunction R&R, Doc. # 66.] In the
second R&R, the magistrate recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. # 42]. [See Summary Judgment R&R, Doc. # 67.] Plaintiff filed, in a single

1

The facts of this case are discussed more thoroughly in the magistrate’s Summary Judgment
R&R. [See Summary Judgment R&R, Doc. # 67, at 1–8.]

2

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 Gossett for pretrial handling.

document, objections to the R&Rs on September 5, 2012. [Obj., Doc. # 71.] For the reasons
discussed herein, the Court adopts the magistrate’s R&Rs.
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
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). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of a specific
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.2005).
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

2

recommendation.” Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. 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). In the two pages submitted by
Plaintiff as his “objections,” Plaintiff merely recounts the motions filed in the case and discusses
discovery problems which were not at issue in the pending R&Rs. Plaintiff has put forward
absolutely no information about, or legal authority discussing, whether the magistrate erred in her
findings related to Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction and Motion to Compel, or to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment.
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to assert any specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation, this Court is not required to respond to his general statements regarding discovery
issues that are irrelevant to the R&Rs 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)). Further, to the extent Plaintiff’s objections are
sufficient enough to warrant de novo review, this Court has reviewed the magistrate’s R&Rs de novo
and finds Plaintiff’s objections without merit.
The vast majority of Plaintiff’s so-called objections discuss documents and other requested
production that, if received, would allegedly support his case. [See Obj. Doc. # 71, at 1–2.]
However, this discovery formed the basis of a previously-filed Motion for Production, which was
denied by the magistrate in May 2012. [See Mot. For Production, Doc. # 52; Obj., Doc. # 71; Text
Order, Doc. # 55.] To the extent Plaintiff is arguing that he needed the requested documents to prove
his case, the magistrate properly denied his motion for production as premature and advised Plaintiff

3

that he could seek such documents through the discovery process, and then file a motion to compel3
if he was dissatisfied with those results. [See Text Order, Doc. # 55.] In the three months that
followed, Plaintiff never filed a motion to compel. Further, as the magistrate thoroughly discussed
in her Summary Judgment R&R, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because
Defendants showed that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that there was no
genuine dispute as to any material fact. [See Summary Judgment R&R, Doc. # 67, at 4–7.]
Conclusion
The Court has thoroughly analyzed the entire record, including the relevant filings, R&Rs,
objections to the R&Rs, and applicable law. The Court has further conducted the required review
of all of Plaintiff’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
[Doc. # 66] recommending that the Court deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion
to Compel filed by Plaintiff, and adopts the magistrate’s R&R [Doc. # 67] recommending that the
Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc.
# 21] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. # 33] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 42]
is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, in its entirety.

3

The Motion to Compel at issue in the Injunction R&R was filed much earlier in the case and
requested that the Court require the Campbell Pre-Release Center to allow Plaintiff access to
the law library. [See Mot. To Compel, Doc. # 33, at 1–4.] As the magistrate correctly held in
her Injunction R&R, and to which Plaintiff filed no discernable objections, the relief sought by
Plaintiff in his Motion to Compel cannot properly be obtained as Plaintiff seeks to compel an
entity not a party to this action. [See Injunction R&R, Doc. # 66, at 3.]

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
September 7, 2012

5