Cruel-El v. South Carolina, State of et al
Filing
18
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 14 Report and Recommendation. Case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 7/30/2018. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Yueseyuan Cruel-El,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
State of South Carolina, SC Department of )
Social Services, Stephen Yarborough, Henry)
McMaster, Katherine H. Tiffany, W. Marsh )
Robertson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
C.A. No. 6:18-1680-HMH-JDA
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Yueseyuan Cruel-El (“Cruel-El”),
proceeding pro se, alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Austin recommends dismissing this case without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process because Cruel-El’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for
relief. (Report & Recommendation 18, ECF No. 14.)
Cruel-El 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
1
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
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).
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 Cruel-El’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 Cruel-El’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 Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that this case 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 30, 2018
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
Procedure.
2
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?