Opinion
C/A No. 9:06-2009-GRA-GCK, Code 550/42:1983.
August 21, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for a review of the magistrate's 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 July 21, 2006.
Liberally construed, plaintiff brought this suit seeking reimbursement of part of a retainer paid to plaintiff's attorney in his criminal case. The magistrate determined that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims and recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff mailed a letter to the clerk's office on August 1, 2006 that was treated as an objection to the magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff is proceeding 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. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making 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).
Plaintiff's letter is not a proper objection. It does not dispute the validity of any portion of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, but instead requests information on filing his lawsuit in state court. Therefore, this Court need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of the magistrate.
After a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation and plaintiff's letter filed August 1, 2006, this Court finds that the report is based upon the proper law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.