Summary
finding that the seizure of plaintiff's medication when he was detained and arrested did not constitute a violation of Due Process Clause as South Carolina had an adequate post-deprivation remedy
Summary of this case from Dortch v. HetrickOpinion
C.A. No. 6:11-861-HMH-JDA.
May 18, 2011
OPINION AND 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)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Proceeding pro se, Stephen J. Guidetti ("Guidetti") brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations to his constitutional rights. Magistrate Judge Austin found that the allegations in Guidetti's complaint were frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Report Recommendation, generally.) Consequently, she recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. On May 17, 2011, Guidetti filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
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).
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 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 Guidetti's objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report, and merely restate his claims. Additionally, Guidetti contemporaneously filed with his objections a second amended complaint in which he alleges over twenty-five causes of action against numerous state actors. On May 18, 2011, however, he filed a motion to withdraw his second amended complaint. Guidetti's motion is granted.
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin's Report and Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Guidetti's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. It is further
ORDERED that Guidetti's motion to withdraw his second amended complaint, docket number 22, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that Guidetti's motion to accept amended/rewritten complaint, docket number 18, is denied as moot.