Johnson v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. It is the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 9/21/2017.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
APPLE, INC. and TIM COOK,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 6:17-02149-MGL-JDA

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
It appears Plaintiff filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the action be dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on August 28, 2017. ECF No. 10. On September
5, 2017, the Clerk of Court filed documents Plaintiff appears to submit as “evidence,” ECF No.
15, and, on September 8, 2017, the Clerk of Court filed Plaintiff’s objections to the Report
(Plaintiff’s Memorandum), ECF No 16.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court is required to conduct a de novo review of
those portions of the Magistrate Judge=s Report to which a specific objection has been made. The
Court need not conduct a de novo review, however, Awhen a party makes general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge=s] proposed
findings and recommendations.@ Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). As provided above, however, the Court need not—and will not—address any of
Plaintiff’s arguments that fail to point the Court to alleged specific errors the Magistrate Judge
made in the Report.
“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however, required
to “conjure up questions never squarely presented to them” or seek out arguments for a party.
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Even when construed liberally and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s
Memorandum fails to set forth any specific objections to the Report. Plaintiff’s Memorandum
consists primarily of a series of political discussions and comments, as well as requests for
subpoenas. Any meaningful counter to the well-reasoned conclusions in the Report is absent.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff’s Memorandum constitutes a motion for various subpoenas, it is
unintelligible, unsupported by law, and without merit. The Court additionally notes Plaintiff’s
September 5, 2017, submission makes no difference in the Court’s consideration of this lawsuit.

2

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of September 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are 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