Youngblood v. Weissglass et al, No. 0:2015cv04779 - Document 44 (D.S.C. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 41 Report and Recommendation, granting the Defendants' 26 Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr. on 6/9/2016. (bgoo)

Download PDF
Youngblood v. Weissglass et al Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Andre Youngblood, Plaintiff, vs. Dr. Barry Weissglass, and Dr. T. Jacobs, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 0:15-4779-HMH-PJG OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Andre Youngblood (“Youngblood”), a federal pretrial detainee during the time period relevant to the complaint, proceeding pro se, alleges a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Defendants. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and Youngblood did not file any response addressing the Defendants’ motion. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissing this case without prejudice. (Report & Recommendation 4, ECF No. 41.) Youngblood 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 1 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, 270-71 (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). Dockets.Justia.com 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 Youngblood’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Youngblood’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 Gossett’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket number 26, is granted, and this case is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina June 9, 2016 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.