Tolliver v. Dept. of Social Services et al
ORDER accepting 8 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/7/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jeffery Dale Tolliver,
Dept. of Social Services, Child Support
Enforcement; Civil Division of
Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office
Civil Services; The Family Court of the
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Judicial Branch; )
Civil Action No.: 7:17-cv-02505-JMC
This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 8), filed on October 12, 2017, recommending that the
Plaintiff Jeffery Tolliver’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to
make a final determination remains with this 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
to which specific objections are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 8 at 10.)
Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 10-1) and Defendants did not respond.
Plaintiff filed three (3) objections to the Report, but none of them are specific in nature,
thus the court must only establish that there has not been a clear error made by the Magistrate
Judge in making her recommendation. 1 See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“. . . in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not
conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (“[c]ourts have also held
de novo review to be unnecessary in analogous 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 recommendations.”).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
November 7, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Plaintiff’s objections are that (1) he has not yet filed evidence with the court to support his claim
against Sergeant Duclos because he requests that the court grant his Motion to Amend (ECF No.
10); (2) his Complaint is not an attempt to amend a prior complaint as stated in the Report; and (3)
he objects to the Report “in general.” (ECF No. 10-1.)
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?