From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nunez v. Atkinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Jun 10, 2014
Civil Action No. 4:13-2744-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 10, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 4:13-2744-TMC

06-10-2014

Marco A. Nunez, #11460-031, aka Marco Antonio Nunez-Ramos, Plaintiff, v. Kenny Atkinson; and C. Blackwelder, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the court dismiss the case, without service of process, for frivolousness and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15 at 13). Plaintiff timely filed objections. (ECF No. 19).

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only "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). In that case, the court reviews the Report only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

In this case, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report. (ECF No. 19.) However, his objections merely restate factual allegations and legal conclusions from his complaint and fail to address any specific, dispositive portion of the Report. The court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Plaintiff's objections and finds no reason to deviate from the Report's recommended disposition

Therefore, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 15) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for frivolousness and failure to state a claim and without service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge
June 10, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Nunez v. Atkinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Jun 10, 2014
Civil Action No. 4:13-2744-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 10, 2014)
Case details for

Nunez v. Atkinson

Case Details

Full title:Marco A. Nunez, #11460-031, aka Marco Antonio Nunez-Ramos, Plaintiff, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 10, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 4:13-2744-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 10, 2014)

Citing Cases

Nunez v. Atkinson

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by…