From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perrin v. Nicholson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Sep 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09:10-01111-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09:10-01111-HFF-BM.

September 30, 2010


ORDER


This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 (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 Magistrate Judge filed the Report on September 8, 2010, and the Clerk of Court entered Plaintiff's objections to the Report on September 23, 2010.

The Court declines to conduct a de novo review of the record and will adopt the Report in its entirety. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has noted that a district court may dispense with de novo review of the record "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). Plaintiff fails even to reference the Magistrate Judge's Report in his objection, much less assert any error in it. At the very best, Plaintiff's objection could be treated as a general objection, which does not call for de novo review. Without any allegation of error in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to expound upon it. Suffice it to say that the Court agrees with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and will adopt the Report.

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that the case be DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 29th day of September, 2010, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within 30 days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Perrin v. Nicholson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Sep 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09:10-01111-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2010)
Case details for

Perrin v. Nicholson

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY PERRIN, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM H. NICHOLSON, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

Date published: Sep 30, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09:10-01111-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2010)

Citing Cases

Yeager v. Texas

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy to parties who are deprived of federally protected civil rights by…

Williams v. W. Va. Reg'l Jail Auth.

In order to state a cause of action for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that a…