From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Duncan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jul 12, 2021
C.A. No. 9:20-03690-HMH-MHC (D.S.C. Jul. 12, 2021)

Opinion

C. A. 9:20-03690-HMH-MHC

07-12-2021

Omar Rick Williams, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Steve Duncan, Carol Scott, Ms. Macon, Ms. Gaylord, Defendants.


OPINION & ORDER

HENRY M. HERLONG, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Omar Rick Williams, Sr. (“Plaintiff”'), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Cherry recommends dismissing this case without issuance and service of process. (R&R, generally, ECF No. 22.)

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).

Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff's objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff's 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 Cherry's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Williams v. Duncan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jul 12, 2021
C.A. No. 9:20-03690-HMH-MHC (D.S.C. Jul. 12, 2021)
Case details for

Williams v. Duncan

Case Details

Full title:Omar Rick Williams, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Steve Duncan, Carol Scott, Ms…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 2021

Citations

C.A. No. 9:20-03690-HMH-MHC (D.S.C. Jul. 12, 2021)

Citing Cases

Curry v. Olberding

Further, although Plaintiff states that he contracted COVID-19, he has not alleged that he suffered a serious…