Anderson v. Davita Upstate Dialysis Center

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 5/28/15. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Benjamin Lewis Anderson,

) Civil Action No.: 6:15-cv-1361
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
Davita Upstate Dialysis Center,
)
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________ )
Plaintiff Benjamin Lewis Anderson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action
against Defendant Davita Upstate Dialysis Center (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) The matter
is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without
service of process. (ECF No. 13.) The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a

district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.")
(citation omitted). “[W]hen a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations,” de novo review is unnecessary. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47
(4th Cir.1982) (citations omitted); see also Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir.2005).
ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on March 26, 2015,
recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim.
(ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on April 7, 2015 and the Court has carefully
considered them de novo. (ECF No. 15 & 19.) In his objections, Plaintiff reiterates that his
complaint against Defendant alleges conspiratorial race-based discrimination in violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), but fails to make any specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation or analysis of his claims.

Upon review of Plaintiff's

objections, the Court concludes that the objections provide no basis for this Court to
deviate from the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the record in this case and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the standard set forth above, the
Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation herein by reference. For
the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and for the reasons set
forth above, It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed, without
prejudice and without service of process.
-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
May 28, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-3-