# Anderson v. Brown

> District Court, D. South Carolina · November 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10430319

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** November 3, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10430319

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Michael Isaiah Anderson, Jr., )
) C.A. No. 6:23-3018-HMH-KFM
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) OPINION & ORDER
)
Major Brown, Captain Patton, C. Neal, )
)
)
Defendants. )

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and District
of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02. Plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his federal
constitutional rights. In his Report and Recommendation filed on October 24, 2023, Magistrate
Judge Kevin F. McDonald recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, without
further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. (R&R 6, ECF No. 29.)
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 (Objs., generally,
ECF Nos. 31.) Objections to a report and recommendation must be specific. A report and
recommendation carries no “presumptive weight,” and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court
reviews de novo “those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

1 See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
1
judge” or “recommit the matter . . . with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “To trigger de
novo review, an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the
objection.’” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v.

Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). In the absence of specific objections, the court
reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005), and need not give any explanation for adopting the report, Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise any specific objections to the
Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff does not address the substance of the magistrate judge’s
findings or conclusions and merely restates the factual basis for his claims. Therefore, after
reviewing the Report and Recommendation for clear error and finding none, the court adopts
Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
It is therefore

ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, without further leave to amend,
and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

Greenville, South Carolina
November 3, 2023

2
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
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.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10430319. Public record. Not legal advice.