Butler v. State of South Carolina

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 . The Court overrules Plaintiffs objections and adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judges eport. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/8/2017. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Richard Butler,

vs.
State of South Carolina,

) Civil Action No. 8:17-2927-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
Defendant. )

Richard Butler (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of South Carolina (“Defendant”), alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pretrial handling and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that the Court
dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF
No. 11.) The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter and the Court incorporates them without recitation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not
1

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).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed an objection (ECF No. 17) to the Report, which the Court has
carefully reviewed. The filing fails to state a specific objection or direct the Court to any
specific error in the Magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation. Rather,
Plaintiff’s objections merely expound on meritless, nonsensical points raised in his
Complaint. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court has conducted a de
novo review of the Report and the record. The Court finds Plaintiff’s objections to be
without merit and hereby overrules them. The Report fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law, and the Court agrees with the
analysis of the Magistrate Judge.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules
Plaintiff’s objections and adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 8, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina

2