Price v. Jackson, No. 1:2020cv02141 - Document 38 (D.S.C. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 34 Report and Recommendation and granting Defendant's 25 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Honorable Sherri A. Lydon on 6/2/2021. (lbak)

Download PDF

Price v. Jackson Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Kenneth R. Price, Case No.: 1:20-cv-02141-SAL Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER Major Vaughn Jackson, in his individual and official capacities, Defendant. This matter is before the Court for review of the April 20, 2021 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges (the “Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 34]. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. Id. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report, ECF Nos. 36, 37. Defendant did not reply to Plaintiff’s objections, and the time to do so has passed. Id. For the reasons outlined herein, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. REVIEW OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A district court, however, 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 id.; 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 Report, this Court is 1 Dockets.Justia.com not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Thus, the Court must only review those portions of the Report to which the party has made a specific written objection. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005). “An objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues— factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, No. 0:15-cv-04009-JMC, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2017) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)). A specific objection to the Magistrate’s Report thus requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the pleading or a mere citation to legal authorities. See Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv00765-RBH, 2017 WL 4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection must “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). “Generally stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would a failure to object.” Staley v. Norton, No. 9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2007) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). The Court reviews portions “not objected to—including those portions to which only ‘general and conclusory’ objections have been made—for clear error.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47). DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s objections are generally stated, nonspecific, and conclusory. A specific objection must “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). Here, Plaintiff’s 2 objections fail to direct the court to any specific portion of the Magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations. Instead, the objections reassert arguments from the pleadings, generally denounce the legal process, and refer to Plaintiff’s still-pending aggravated assault charge in state court. See [ECF Nos. 36, 37]. Accordingly, the objections are generally stated, nonspecific, and have the same effect as would a failure to object. Having found that Plaintiff fails to articulate a specific written objection, the Court reviews the entire Report for clear error. Staley, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (citing Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the applicable standard of law, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and hereby incorporates the Report by reference. CONCLUSION After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case, the Court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 25, is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge June 2, 2021 Florence, South Carolina 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.