GSES DSR O/ ips. a Sa ‘a * > thee x nS Rorsp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION JAMES MUHAMMAD, a/k/a James § Wright Sr., Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION 3:22-1622-MGL-SVH § JUDGE ANGELA E. LITTLE; SOLICITOR = § KATIE CLEVELAND; STATE OF SOUTH § CAROLINA; THE UPPER PANEL; LT. § BOWMAN; AND LT. KRUDON, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff James Muhammad, a/k/a James Wright Sr. (Muhammad), filed this lawsuit against the above-named defendants pursuant to

. Muhammad is representing himself. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending to the Court it dismiss the action with prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with

and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only arecommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on July 20, 2022, and the Clerk of Court entered Muhammad’s objections on August 4, 2022. The Court has reviewed the objections, but holds them

to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. Muhammad fails to offer any specific objections to the Report. As per the law of the Fourth Circuit, this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the record “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge’s] proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of specific objections. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to

accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted). Here, as the Court already stated, Muhammad wholly failed to bring any specific objections to the Report. Instead, he offers nothing more than non-specific objections. Inasmuch as the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the complaint in her comprehensive and well- reasoned Report, it need not repeat the discussion here. Consequently, because Muhammad neglects to make any specific objections to the Report, and the Court has found no clear error, the Court will overrule the objections and accept the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Muhammad’s action be dismissed with prejudice.

Further, inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Muhammad of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 7, he has waived appellate review. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,

(6th Cir. 1991) (holding general objections are insufficient to preserve appellate review). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Muhammad’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it

herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Muhammad’s action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Any pending motions are therefore RENDERED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 19th day of April, 2023, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Muhammad is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.