White v. Greenway et al
Filing
14
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 8/13/14. (alew, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
James David White,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bobby Lee Greenway, Sr.;
)
Phillip Maynard; Patricia Lee Greenway; )
Bobby Lee Greenway, Jr.; Holly Smith
)
Waller; Dean Bonkey; Ron Phillips, doing )
business as Upstate Properties; and
)
Phillips Contractors,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )
C/A No.: 8:14-cv-2706-GRA
ORDER
(Written Opinion)
This matter comes before this 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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, and filed on July 7,
2014. ECF No. 10.
Plaintiff James David White (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 2, 2014. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9. Under established procedure in this
judicial district, Magistrate Judge McDonald made a thorough and careful review of
the pro se complaint and now recommends that this Court dismiss this case without
prejudice and without service of process. ECF No. 10. For the reasons discussed
herein, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety and
dismisses this case without prejudice.
Page 1 of 4
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 district 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).
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 “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted,” 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
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
Page 2 of 4
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court
may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions." Id.
In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the
objections must be timely filed and must 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 Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir.
1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). “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 recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). 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).
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. 10.
The Notice warned that “[f]ailure to timely file
specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of
the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Page 3 of 4
Recommendation.” Id. The deadline for filing objections was July 24, 2014. See id.
The plaintiff failed to file any written objections.
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.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 13 , 2014
Anderson, South Carolina
Page 4 of 4
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?