From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Futch v. Finnerty

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Nov 7, 2005
Civil Action No. 6:05-2529-HFF-WMC (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 6:05-2529-HFF-WMC.

November 7, 2005


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING CASE


This appears to be a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. This matter is before the Court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Report) made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) 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. Matthews 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 may recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed his Report on October 14, 2005, and Plaintiff failed to file any formal objections to the Report. Plaintiff did, however, send a letter to the Court on November 1, 2005. In this letter, Plaintiff complains of no response to a grievance which he filed on September 27, 2005. Because this grievance was not filed at the time this suit was brought, it cannot excuse any failure by Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing this suit. Further, the letter does not address the primary reason behind the Magistrate's recommendation that this case be dismissed: namely, the fact that Plaintiff's suit lacks merit to the point of being frivolous. In the absence of a specific objection to this recommendation, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standards set forth above, the Court overrules the objections found in Plaintiff's letter, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. It is ORDERED that this case be deemed a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and (g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Futch v. Finnerty

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Nov 7, 2005
Civil Action No. 6:05-2529-HFF-WMC (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2005)
Case details for

Futch v. Finnerty

Case Details

Full title:JOHN RANDALL FUTCH, Plaintiff, v. FNU FINNERTY, Defendant

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

Date published: Nov 7, 2005

Citations

Civil Action No. 6:05-2529-HFF-WMC (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2005)

Citing Cases

Futch v. U.S.

See Keener v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation Parole, 128 F.3d 143, 144 (3d Cir. 1997). While incarcerated,…

Futch v. McKinnon

If the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated, brought an action or appeal in a…