Smith v. Porter et al

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 . The Plaintiff's Complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 1/2/2018. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Garrin David Smith, a/k/a Garrett Don
Smith,

C/A No. 6:17-2105-JFA

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Officer D. Porter; Officer W. Mann; Sgt. J.F.
Cole; Magistrate C.R. Garrett; Sgt. R.F.
Sherbet; Rose Marie San Filippo; Cpt. J.F.
Kellett; Detention Sgt. Smith; I.D. Larson;
Captain Wilbanks, et al.,
Defendants.
Garrin David Smith (“Plaintiff”), a former prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915.1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case
was referred to a Magistrate Judge for Review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action2 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this action should be summarily dismissed without
prejudice. (ECF No. 18 p. 1, 14). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards

1

2

Because the complaint was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, this court is charged with screening Plaintiff’s
lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if, after being liberally construed, it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on
October 30, 2017. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by November 13,
2017. (ECF No. 18). However, Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the
absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to
give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 18). Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint is summarily dismissed without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 2, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2