Reid et al v. Verdin et al

Filing 69

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 31 . this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in his complaint by mere amendment Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/3/2019. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Bobby J. Reid,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Letitia Verdin, Henry J. Mills, W. Walter
)
Wilkins, Candace F. Clark, Daniel R.
)
Hughes, Evan C. Bramhall, John B.
)
Duggan, Ann Marie Howell, James E.
)
Hudson, and Howard Steinburg,
)
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________

Civil Action No. 6:18-987-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is once again before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South
Carolina.

On

July

13,

2018,

the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

a

Report

and

Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this case be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 31.)
The Court initially adopted the Report (ECF No. 31) on August 14, 2018. On
August 20 and 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 38) to Magistrate Judge
McDonald’s prior orders denying him bond and appointed counsel, as well as a motion
to amend the complaint (ECF No. 39). The motion to amend the complaint was denied
as moot on August 24, 2018. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 44) asserting that he never received a copy of the Report
prior to the Court’s adoption thereof. On January 9, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration and vacated its previous order adopting the Report. (ECF
No. 52.) The case was reopened and Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days in which to

file his objections to the Report, if any. On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for
copies (ECF No. 56), stating he still had not received a copy of the Report. The motion
was granted in part, and the Report was mailed to Plaintiff, along with the public docket
sheet, on January 31, 2019. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff was, again, granted thirty (30) days
from the entry of the Text Order granting in part the motion for copies in which to file his
objections. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on March 7, 20191 (ECF No. 63), as well as a
motion for copies at no expense (ECF No. 65) on May 13, 2019, which was
subsequently denied (ECF No. 67).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270–71 (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, 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). However, the
Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
1

Error! Main Document Only.This filing date reflects that the envelope containing the petition was
stamped as having been received on May 7, 2019, by the McDougall Correctional Institution Mailroom.
(ECF No. 63-1.) Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (holding prisoner's pleading is considered filed
when given to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court).

As noted above, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, which
the Court has carefully reviewed. The objections, though verbose, fail to state any
specific objection to the Magistrate Judge’s sound reasoning or direct the Court to any
specific error in the proposed findings and recommendation that this action be
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to
state a claim. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution the Court has conducted a de
novo review. After careful review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
comprehensive and well-reasoned Report. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
fairly and accurately summarized the facts, applied the correct principles of law, and
committed no error. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections lack merit, and
they are hereby overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules
Plaintiff’s objections, and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process because the Court finds that Plaintiff
cannot cure the defects in his complaint by mere amendment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 3, 2019
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.