Gaffney v. Aaron's Sales and Lease

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting and adopting 17 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 5/19/15. (alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Christine Shippy Gaffney,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Aaron’s Sales and Lease,
)
Ownership for Less!,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

C/A No.: 7:15-cv-01380-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for 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 Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, and filed on April 29,
2015.

ECF No. 17.

For the reasons discussed herein, this Court adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in its entirety.
Background
Plaintiff Christine Shippy Gaffney, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this action on March 26, 2015. ECF No. 1. Under established procedure in this
judicial district, Magistrate Judge Austin made a careful review of the pro se
complaint and now recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case against
Defendant without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. ECF No.
17.

For the reasons discussed herein, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s

recommendation in its entirety and summarily dismisses this case.

Page 1 of 4

Standard of Review
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. 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). However, a court may not construct the plaintiff's legal arguments
for her, 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).
Plaintiff brings this claim in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which
permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying
the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible
abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a district court to dismiss the case upon a
finding that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” “is
frivolous or malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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

Page 2 of 4

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.
In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the
objections must be timely filed and specifically identify the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have . . .
held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). 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 (4th Cir. 1983).
The failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any
further right to appeal when the parties have been warned that they must object to
preserve appellate review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); see also
Carter v. Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam
decision).

In the present case, Plaintiff received a copy of the Report and

Recommendation, which contained a “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and
Recommendation.”

ECF No. 17.

The Notice warned that “[f]ailure to timely file

specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of

Page 3 of 4

the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation.” Id. The deadline for filing objections was May 18, 2015. See id.
Plaintiff did not file any objections to Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report and
Recommendation.
Conclusion
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable
law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its
entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.  
________________________________
G. Ross Anderson, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge
May 19, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4