Braxton v. Scarborough et al, No. 8:2022cv01106 - Document 14 (D.S.C. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER RULING ON AND ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1 , is dismissed without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr. on 5/17/2022. (sgri)

Download PDF
Braxton v. Scarborough et al 8:22-cv-01106-HMH Date Filed 05/17/22 Entry Number 14 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Michael T. Braxton, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Joette Scarborough, A. Boyd, C. York, ) Donnie Stonebreaker, Mrs./Ms. Freeman, ) Ms. Hendrix, Bryan P. Stirling, ) Mr. Michael Stobbe, Lettie Jacobs, Mrs./Ms.) Baker/Price, Teresa S. Player, George M. ) Ducworth, Mr. Gerald Black, Don A. ) Thompson, ) ) Defendants. ) C.A. No. 8:22-01106-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 Michael T. Braxton (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Austin recommends dismissing this case without issuance and service of process. (R&R, generally, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs., ECF No. 11.) 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 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 8:22-cv-01106-HMH Date Filed 05/17/22 Entry Number 14 Page 2 of 2 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 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 Plaintiff’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff’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 Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina May 17, 2022 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.