Darby v. Orangeburg, County of et al
Filing
15
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 11 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/15/2012. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Thomas Darby,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
County of Orangeburg; Tax Administration )
Office,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 5:12-2351-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On
September 26, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the case be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences
if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on October 9, 2012.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which
a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
1
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections,
the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
Plaintiff’s objections are nonsensical. See, e.g., Obj. at 2 (“The National Institute of Health
well overrules the District of Orangeburg as well as the State of South Carolina by positioning the
structure of government to recognize the practice of Oneatha Skin and Health Care[.]”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 15, 2012
2
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?