Opinion
C/A 2:23-cv-6658-RMG
08-08-2024
Glynndeavin Von Fox, Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Veteran Affairs, Defendant.
ORDER
Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 11) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without service of process and without further leave to amend. This is one of eleven lawsuits filed by Plaintiff pro se on December 8, 2023. Plaintiff was given notice of right to the file written objections to the R & R within fourteen days of service of the R & R and a failure to file objections would limit review by the District Court to clear error review and waiver of the right to appeal. (Id. at 8). Plaintiff filed no objections to the R & R.
Legal Standards
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). Because Plaintiffs did not file objections to the R&R, the R&R is reviewed for clear error.
Discussion
After a review of the record and the R&R, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the issues and correctly determined that Plaintiff's complaint was subject to summary dismissal without further leave to amend. The Magistrate Judge found the Complaint “incomprehensible” and failed to state any plausible federal claim. (Dkt. No. 11 at 4-6).
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 11) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES the instant action without service of process or leave to amend and without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.