Gaddy v. South Carolina Dept of Correction of General Counsel et al

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 12 Report and Recommendation. DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Court notes that the Complaint is substantially frivolous and finds that it is a strike for purposes of the three strikes rule. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/11/2016. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, #323551,

C/A No. 8:15-cv-2772-JFA-JDA

Plaintiff,
vs.
South Carolina Dept. of Corrections Office of
General Counsel; Warden Joseph McFadden;
Associate Warden Blackwell, All of Under
Color of State Laws,

ORDER

Defendants.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations to his Constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner is a
South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) inmate incarcerated at the Lieber
Correctional Institution (“Lieber”). He files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. This case is subject to summary dismissal.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case
was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. 1 On August 17, 2015, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) wherein she recommends that this Court
dismiss the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 12).
Petitioner filed an objection to the Report as well as several supplemental objections. (ECF Nos.
16, 20, 22, 24). Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
1

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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261 (1976).

whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific
portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir.
1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate Judge,
this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Further, a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report is unnecessary “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 a proper objection, the court must “‘only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148–53 (1985).
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and
the Court incorporates those without a recitation.
In the matter before this Court, Petitioner fails to sufficiently identify any specific point
of error in the Magistrate Judge’s legal analysis. Rather, Petitioner includes only vague legal
jargon and other words and phrases that are generally nonsensical. These objections are clearly
insufficient to require a de novo review of the Report by this Court.
Thus, after a careful review of the record, of the applicable law, and of the Report and the
Objections thereto, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is proper.

2

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and
hereby DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Further, the Court notes that the Complaint is substantially frivolous and finds that it is a “strike”
for purposes of the “three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McLean v. United States, 566
F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 11, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3