Johnson v. Cook et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting and adopting 11 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 5/13/15. (alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Christopher Lee Johnson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Tim Cook and Apple, Inc.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )

C/A No.: 6:15-1348-GRA-JDA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, and filed on April
8, 2015. ECF No. 11. For the reasons discussed herein, this Court adopts the
magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety.
Background
Plaintiff Christopher Lee Johnson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

ECF Nos. 1, 13, & 17.

Under

established procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge Austin made a careful
review of the pro se complaint and now recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
case against Defendants without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation on April 17, 2015. ECF No. 13.

1

Plaintiff’s complaint does not specifically invoke a civil rights claim; however, Plaintiff’s argument
seems to contend that Defendants violated his civil rights. See ECF No. 1.

Page 1 of 4

Standard of Review
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 se litigant to allow
for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982). However, 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).
Plaintiff brings this claim in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which
permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying
the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible
abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a district court to dismiss the case upon a
finding that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” “is
frivolous or malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The magistrate judge 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

Page 2 of 4

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 order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the
objections must be timely filed and specifically identify the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have . . .
held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, 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). In this
case, April 27, 2015 was the deadline for filing objections.

Plaintiff filed timely

objections to the Report and Recommendation on April 17, 2015. ECF No. 13.
Discussion
Upon review of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that the objections are
non-specific and unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation. As such, the objections lack specificity to trigger de novo
review and will not be addressed.

Page 3 of 4

Conclusion
After a thorough review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the
applicable law.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and

adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without service on Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.  
________________________________
G. Ross Anderson, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge
May 13, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of its
entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

Page 4 of 4