Brett v. Biden

District Court, D. South Carolina

Brett v. Biden

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Frank Brett, C/A No. 3:23-cv-4535-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Joe Biden; and Jill Biden; Robert Rochinel; Jeff Epstein Gary; JP Morgan Chase Bank; John Untiran; Guy William; Debbie McGlune; Jack Right; Debbie; Dee; Sylvia; Sydney; Peanut Little; Dorothy Little; Mr. Price; John N. DeTongh; Cecil DeTongh; Hunter Biden; Stephoe Bingham; John Mina; Mantcanty; Brendan Brett; Taffy Brett; Cleveland Clonie; Christine Sable; Sister; Richy Gertz; Sydney Little; Mike Reuter; Bill Short Causn; Steve Currmuch; John Stunt; Lynn Door; Female Cousin; Son; Ed Digiogio; Jim McGlyn; John McGlyn; Jim Lyons; John Lyons; Mrs. Light; Kenn Brett; Peter Cooper; Jim Marinname; John Marinname; Steve Bannon; Steve Bannon’s male cousin; Roger Stone; Roger Stone’s male cousin; Chantal; Black Woman; Debbie McGlone; Irish Woman; Casey Overtune; Kevin Overtune; Mike Evleen; AnnNaughton; Jim Naughton; Tone Reys; Mr. Sloan; Mr. Shapero Cousin; Josh Shapero; Merrick Garland; Dexter McCollough; Judith McCollough; Mr. WaterJohn Wardlobe and Son; John Gentz; Maria Gentz; Carolynn Gentz; Marion Gentz; Glenn Knight; Mrs. Knight; Michele Ruin & Daughter; 3 US Marshals; Mrs. Re-Whitman; Mr. Myron; Third Black Man,

Defendants. Frank Brett (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against defendants. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

; § 1915A. In

accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After performing an initial review of the complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110

Stat. 1321 (1996), including

28 U.S.C. § 1915

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”).

(ECF No. 7). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that the complaint should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the

docket on September 12, 2023. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by September 26, 2023. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court 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

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole,

974 F.2d 1330

(4th

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

423 U.S. 261

(1976). Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

718 F.2d 198, 199

(4th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Complaint is subject to summary dismissal. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 7). Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. peg Cader tons October 16, 2023 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown