Opinion
C/A No.: 4:08-cv-02800-GRA.
February 26, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court for review of Magistrate Thomas E. Rogers' Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed on February 3, 2010. Plaintiff filed this action on August 8, 2008, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and that they failed to protect him from an excessive risk to his safety.
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge Rogers made a careful review of the pro se complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends that this Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons discussed herein, this Court adopts the magistrate's recommendation in its entirety.
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).
Liberal construction means only that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999). A court may not construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him. Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993). A district court is not 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, 106 S.Ct. 1475, 89 L.Ed.2d 729 (1986).
The magistrate 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 recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. 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 (4th. Cir. 1983). On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed objections.
The Court reiterates that it may only consider specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. In his objections, Plaintiff never actually addresses the magistrate's legal arguments and never even references the Report and Recommendation. Instead, Plaintiff points out alleged factual discrepancies in the Defendants' affidavits. Even if true, these factual nuances do nothing to undermine the magistrate's logic and reasoning. In light of the Plaintiff's failure to assert any specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to respond to his general statements because "a district judge should not have to guess what arguments an objecting party depends on when reviewing a magistrate's report." Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988).
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate's Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions in this case are dismissed as moot.