Blakely v. US Department of Health and Human Services et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 . It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 7/11/2017. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mark E. Blakely,
aka Anunnaki Mayor Sholom El Blakeney, )
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration,
Virginia Department of Social Services,
City of Norfolk, V.A., Child Support
Enforcement, City of Newport News, V.A., )
Child Support Enforcement,
City of Petersburg, V.A., Child Support
Enforcement, Virginia Department of
Revenue, Virginia Attorney General Offices,)
Sandra Austin, of Norfolk Child Support
Division, M. Heggins, of Norfolk Child
Support Division, Paula C. Merritt, of
Norfolk Child Support Division,
Daniela Wagner, of Norfolk Child Support )
Division, Mrs. Horward, of the
Newport News Child Support Division,
C. Schofeild, of the Newport News Child )
Support Division, Carmen M Silmon,
of the Newport News Child Support
Division, Lourdes Burlely, of
Petersburg Child Support Division,
C.A. No. 6:17-1481-HMH-KFM
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Mark E. Blakely (“Blakely”), proceeding
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. 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 and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may
pro se, alleges violations of “due process, searches, warrants, seizures, identity fraud, denial of
equal protection of law, self incrimination, involuntary servitude, [and] 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
(Compl. 4-5, ECF No. 1). In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McDonald
recommends dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. (R&R 6, ECF No. 11.)
Blakely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Blakely’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Blakely’s objections are without merit.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein by reference.
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
It is therefore
ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
July 11, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?