Loftin v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety et al

Filing 53

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 15 Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by James Loftin, adopting in its entirety 30 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 7/6/12. (alew, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION James Loftin, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety; Trooper T.J. Genco Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 6:12-cv-00863-GRA ORDER This matter comes before the Court for review of the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation filed on May 24, 2012 and made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C. Plaintiff James Loftin brought a motion to dismiss and summary judgment on April 2, 2012. ECF No. 15. In her May 24, 2012 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment to be denied. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff did not file objections. For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro Page 1 of 3 se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). A court may not construct the plaintiff’s legal arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993), nor is a district court required to recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts to unravel them,” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985), cert denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986). The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. 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). Plaintiff has filed no objections. After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Page 2 of 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and summary judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. July 6, 2012 Anderson, South Carolina Page 3 of 3

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?