The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Reginald Brown, #00264654, a/k/a Niccolo C/A No. 4:19-cv-3587-JFA-TER
Don Emperor, #264656,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
D. Boccabello, K. Conrad, Mr. Lewis,
Susan Duffy, P. Phillips, Steve McCarthy,
C. Hindburg, R.L. Turner, Mr. Bennette,
Mr. S. Williams, John Stirling, General
Counsel, Willie Davis,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Reginald Brown, #00264654, a/k/a Niccolo Don Emperor, #264656, a
self-represented state prisoner, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915;
§ 1915A. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 30, 2019. (ECF No. 1). By order dated
March 24, 2020, the Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended
complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the court which would warrant summary
dismissal pursuant to § 1915 and § 1915A. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff failed to file an amended
complaint or otherwise correct the deficiencies.
After reviewing the complaint and specifically advising Plaintiff of deficiencies in
his pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this
Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 13). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge
opines that the complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. Thus, the
Report recommends that this matter be summarily dismissed with prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and
standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on May 6, 2020. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by
May 20, 2020. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections or otherwise address the deficiencies in
his complaint. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report
and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Plaintiff’s
Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
pleadings fail to state a claim and should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 13). Consequently, this matter is summarily dismissed with prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
peg Cader tons
May 28, 2020 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge