Opinion
C/A No. 2:11-01283-TMC
01-11-2012
Derick Singleton, Plaintiff, v. Ben Coakley and Elise Crosby, Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge. On July 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the Complaint in the above-captioned cased be dismissed without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff a notice advising him of his right to file objections to the Report. (Dkt. # 8 at 7). On July 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report. (Dkt. # 10).
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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. The district 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 Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir.1982). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's objections and finds that his objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report, or merely restate his claims. Plaintiff fails to specifically argue where the Magistrate Judge erred in her analysis. A party's general non-specific objection is insufficient to challenge findings by a Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, this Court need not explain its reasons for adopting the recommendation.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Complaint in the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 11, 2012
Greenville, 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.