Pinckney v. U.S. Government et al, No. 2:2019cv00939 - Document 17 (D.S.C. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, for 11 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on September 3, 2019. (kbos)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pinckney v. U.S. Government et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Henry Lee Pinckney, Plaintiff, v. . U.S. Government, State of South Carolina, Defendants. __________________________________ Civil Action No.: 2:19-939-BHH ORDER AND OPINION BACKGROUND Plaintiff Henry Lee Pinckney (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against U.S. Government and State of South Carolina (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On June 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (ECF No. 11) recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without service of process, finding inter alia that Plaintiff has “failed to state a claim because his allegations are so generally incomprehensible and filled with what could only be considered by a reasonable person as unconnected, conclusory, and unsupported comments or ‘gibberish,’ that it is unclear what is to be made of them.” (ECF No. 11 at 6.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff’s objection fails to point to any specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Rather, the objection consists of rambling, incomprehensible, and disjointed statements. (See id.) The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the Court incorporates them without recitation. 1 Dockets.Justia.com STANDARD OF REVIEW The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (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, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). DISCUSSION As noted above, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, which the Court has carefully reviewed. The objections fail to state any specific objection to the Magistrate Judge’s sound reasoning or direct the Court to any specific error in the proposed findings and recommendation that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service process. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s comprehensive and well-reasoned Report. After careful review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts, applied 2 the correct principles of law, and committed no error. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections lack merit, and they are hereby overruled. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge September 3, 2019 Greenville, South Carolina ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3
]]>
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.
