Jones v. Greenville County Police Department et al

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 . The case is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/17/2013. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Clayton Thomas Jones,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Greenville County Police Department;
Greenville County Solicitor Lucas Marchant;
Greenville County Detention Center; Greenville
County Magistrate Court; Greenville County
Circuit Court; D.A. Kern, Officer; Lashawn
Nuhu Reid, Judge, Municipal Court; D.P.
Garrison, Officer; John Barksdale, Judge; Mark
W. Hartle, Judge; Timothy Sullivan, Public
Defender; James M. Dorriety, Assistant
Administrator, GCDC; Letitia H. Verdin, Judge;
Scott D. Robinson, Attorney,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:13-2169-TMC

ORDER

The plaintiff, Clayton Thomas Jones (“Jones”), filed this action pro se and in forma
pauperis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., all pre-trial
matters have been referred to a magistrate judge. This case is now before the court on the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court dismiss
this action without prejudice and without service of process. (ECF No. 11.) The magistrate
judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight and this court retains the responsibility to
make a final determination. 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 a party specifically objects, 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). However, the court has no duty to conduct a de novo review if a party’s
objections are “general and conclusory” and “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 this case, Jones filed timely objections to the Report. (ECF No. 13.) However, his
objections merely restate factual allegations and legal conclusions from his complaint and fail to
address any specific, dispositive portion of the Report.1 The court has thoroughly reviewed the
Report and Jones’s objections and finds no reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended
disposition. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. This case is,
therefore, dismissed without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Court Judge
September 17, 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.

1

In addition, to the extent Jones has moved this court to dismiss his state court indictment, (ECF
No. 13-1) that motion is not properly before this court.