Baker v. Federal Election Commission et al

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING 13 Report and Recommendation; It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt. No. 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/29/2013. (mbro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jacob Baker,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Federal Election Commission,
)
President Barack Obama, George W Bush, )
Mitt Romney, Virgil Goode, Jill Stein,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-03154-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 13], filed on November 14, 2012, recommending that
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter
which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a

recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility
to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
1

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
No. 13 at 5]. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 18].
Objections to the Report must be specific. Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of
the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
In reviewing Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, the court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are
non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, or merely restate
his claims. Furthermore, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report provides an accurate
summary of the facts and correctly states the law in the instant case. Accordingly, this court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 13]. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-captioned case is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
January 29, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2