Wiley v. Wardlaw et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 . This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/5/2016. (kric, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Melvin Earl Wiley,

) Civil Action No.: 6:15-1268-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
ORDER AND OPINION
vs.
)
)
J. Wardlaw, South Carolina Highway
)
Patrol; Greenville County Jail; State
)
of South Carolina; C.R. Garrett, of
)
Summary Court,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
Plaintiff Melvin Earl Wiley (“Plaintiff”), a resident of Taylors, South Carolina, and
proceeding pro se, initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
seeking his rights as a “natural man” and protection from the harassment of Defendants.
(ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the
within action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial
handling and a Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends
that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. (ECF No. 12.) The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and standards of law on this matter and the Court incorporates them without
recitation.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging inter alia that he was maliciously
prosecuted. On March 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 12.) On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document

which was docketed as his objection to the Report. (ECF No. 16.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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).
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).
DISCUSSION
After a careful review of Plaintiff's “objections,” it is fair to say that Plaintiff does not
make any specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. Rather, Plaintiff’s brief
response to the Report and Recommendation is rambling and nonsensical.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s
objections and has made a de novo review of the entire Report and Recommendation and
finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts and applied the

-2-

correct principles of law. Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections have no merit
and are hereby overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules
Plaintiff’s objections and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is
incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
July 5, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina

-3-