Maddox v. County of Spartanburg SC et al

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 13 Report and Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 7/24/2013. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Wayne S. Maddox,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
County of Spartanburg, SC; Spartanburg )
Co. Sheriff’s Dep’t; Spartanburg Co.
)
Detention Center; Spartanburg Co.
)
EMTs; Spartanburg Co. Fire Dep’t;
)
Highway Patrol Officers, that patrol
)
Spartanburg Co.; and Spartanburg
)
County Magistrate Judges,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 7:13-cv-01260-GRA
ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Kevin F. McDonald’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) D.S.C., and filed
on June 20, 2013.

Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends that this Court

summarily dismiss Plaintiff Wayne S. Maddox’s (“Plaintiff’s”) case without
prejudice because the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim on which relief
may be granted. ECF No. 13. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation in its entirety and dismisses the action without prejudice.
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally.

Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than

those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.

Page 1 of 3

1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro
se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).

A court may not construct the

plaintiff's legal arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th
Cir.1993), nor is a district court required to recognize “obscure or extravagant
claims defying the most concerted efforts to unravel them.” Beaudett v. City of
Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088
(1986).
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.
On June 20, 2013, a copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed
to Plaintiff and he was advised of his right to file objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation.

Plaintiff did not file objections and the time within

which to do so has now expired.

In the absence of specific objections to the

Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation

Page 2 of 3

for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and
the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the
correct principles of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 24, 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3