From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oates v. Animation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Oct 13, 2020
C.V. No. 7:20-02895-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Oct. 13, 2020)

Opinion

C.V. No. 7:20-02895-HMH-JDA

10-13-2020

Frances H. Oates, Plaintiff, v. Dreamworks Animation, Defendant.


OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Frances H. Oates ("Oates"), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Austin recommends dismissing the action without issuance and service of process.

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See 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 and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). --------

Oates filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Upon review, the court finds that Oates' objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, or merely restate her claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Oates' objections are without merit. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the complaint is summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
October 13, 2020

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Oates v. Animation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Oct 13, 2020
C.V. No. 7:20-02895-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Oct. 13, 2020)
Case details for

Oates v. Animation

Case Details

Full title:Frances H. Oates, Plaintiff, v. Dreamworks Animation, Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 13, 2020

Citations

C.V. No. 7:20-02895-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Oct. 13, 2020)