Readon v. Huckaby

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Ernest Lee Readon, a/k/a Ernest Reardon, ) a/k/a Earnest Reardon, ) )

Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 2:21-237-HMH-MHC ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER )

Thomas L. Huckaby, Jr.; Scott Lamar )

Robinson, ) )

Defendants. )

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Ernest Lee Readon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Cherry recommends dismissing this case without issuance and service of process. (R&R, generally, ECF No. 19.)

Plaintiff 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 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 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 Cherry’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint 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

June 28, 2021

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.