Watts v. Lexington County Police Department et al

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 15 Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/4/12. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
William T. Watts, III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lexington County Police Dept.;
)
South Congaree Police Dept., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

C/A No. 8:12-2909-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate
Judge.

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) filed in this action on November 15, 2012, recommending
that the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

(Dkt. # 15).

The

Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff a notice advising him of his right to file objections to
the Report. (Dkt. # 15 at 11). Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
on December 3, 2012. (Dkt. # 18).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. 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 objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the

Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In
the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are
reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed
without prejudice.

As noted above, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report which the

Court has carefully reviewed. However, the Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for
this court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition.

The

objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report or merely
restate Plaintiff’s claims.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the
standard set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
December 4, 2012
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if applicable.