Baker v. Registration and Election Office et al

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, adopting 12 Report and Recommendation, denying as moot 25 Motion for an Investigation filed by Jacob Baker. Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/14/2013. (gpre, )

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

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Registration and Election Office; Sheriff Steve
)
Loftis; Federal Election Commission; Barack
)
Obama, Democratic Party; Joe Biden; Oprah
)
Winfrey; Mark Stanford; Prince Charles; London
)
the British; France the Country, President;
)
Saddie Hussan; Mitt Romney, Republican Party;
)
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party; Virgil Goode,
)
Constitution Party; Jill Stein, Green Party; Michael A. )
Baker; Greenville Police Department; George
)
W. Bush,
)
)
Defendants.
)

C/A No. 6:12-3221-TMC
OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff, Jacob Baker (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were
referred to a Magistrate Judge. On November 14, 2012, Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D.
Austin issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the
Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

(Dkt. No. 12).

The Magistrate Judge

provided Plaintiff a notice advising him of his right to file objections to the Report. (Dkt.
No. 12 at 5). Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report on November 26,
2012. (Dk.t No. 19).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the court. 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 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 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). In
the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are
reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As noted above,
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report which the Court has carefully reviewed. However,
the Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for this court to deviate from the Magistrate
Judge’s recommended disposition. The objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the Report or merely restate Plaintiff’s claims.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the
standard set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process, and Plaintiff’s pending Motion for an Investigation (Dkt. No. 25)

is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 14, 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.