Opinion
C/A 4:22-3545-JFA-TER
11-29-2022
Sammy Keith Watkins, #304095, Plaintiff, v. Ridgeland Correctional Inst,0 Defendant.
ORDER
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge.
Plaintiff, Sammy Keith Watkins (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, has filed the instant civil action against Defendant Ridgeland Correctional Institution (“Defendant”) by way of a letter submitted to this Court. 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 initial review.
The Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) which was filed on the docket on October 25, 2022. (ECF No. 6). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this action should be dismissed because Plaintiff's allegations asserted in his letter are frivolous. Id. Plaintiff alleges there is a body wire tap inside of him and he is requesting its removal. (ECF No. 1). The Report sets forth, in further detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by November 8, 2022. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections or otherwise address the deficiencies in his complaint. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
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 Magistrate's Report, 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).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff's allegations are subject to summary dismissal because they are frivolous, and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (District Court is entrusted with the discretion to dismiss a case for factual frivolousness “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.”).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 6). Therefore, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.