Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 3:19-1424-MGL-SVH
11-26-2019
JAMES DAVID NANNEY, Plaintiff, v. ACE CHECK CASHING, JPAY, PRISON LITIGATION SERVICES, INC., and RONALD L. MOORE, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S ACTION WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
Plaintiff James David Nanney (Nanney) filed this lawsuit pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the action be dismissed with 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 June 13, 2019, the Clerk of Court entered Nanney's objections on June 27, 2019, and a letter from him on August 26, 2019. The Court has reviewed the objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.
This Court need not conduct a 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 Judge's] proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of specific objections. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.") (citation omitted).
Here, Nanney has wholly failed to bring any specific objections to the Report. Thus, having found no clear error, the Court need not make a de novo review of the record before accepting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
Further, inasmuch as Nanney was warned of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 7, he has waived appellate review. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding general objections are insufficient to preserve appellate review).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Nanney's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 26th day of November, 2019, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Nanney is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.