Harris v. US Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dismissing case without prejudice, mooting 16 Motion to Dismiss, filed by US Department of Homeland Security, ICE, accepting and adopting 13 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 3/22/13. (alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Lee Marvin Harris, Sr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; )
and ICE, U.S. Immigration and Customs )
Enforcement,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

C/A No.: 7:12-cv-3291-GRA-JDA
ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the court for a review of United States Magistrate
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C, and Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff Lee Marvin Harris, Sr.
(“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action seeking release
of currency seized by government law enforcement officers. Magistrate Judge Austin
now recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
Report & Recommendation 10, ECF No. 13.
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915. In an action proceeding under this statute, the Court is permitted to
review the pleading and dismiss the case if the action is not properly before it.
Plaintiff is also a pro se litigant. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings
liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is

Page 1 of 3

charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the
development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982).
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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may
also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
instructions." Id. “The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation
waives any further right to appeal.” Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829
F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see Carter v. Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th
Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the
Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
In this case, objections were due by March 15, 2013. Neither the defendant nor the
plaintiff filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
After a careful review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and applicable law.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction is now MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 22 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3