Oates v. Dreamworks Animation, No. 7:2020cv02895 - Document 20 (D.S.C. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. The complaint is summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 10/13/2020.(abuc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Oates v. Dreamworks Animation 7:20-cv-02895-HMH Date Filed 10/13/20 Entry Number 20 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Frances H. Oates, Plaintiff, vs. Dreamworks Animation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.V. No. 7:20-02895-HMH-JDA OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Frances H. Oates (“Oates”), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Austin recommends dismissing the action without issuance and service of process. Oates 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 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 (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 7:20-cv-02895-HMH Date Filed 10/13/20 Entry Number 20 Page 2 of 2 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 Oates’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate her claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Oates’ 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 Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that the complaint is summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina October 13, 2020 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. 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.
