Rollins v. State of North Carolina Highway Patrol Officers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Adam Roy Rollins, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 7:23-cv-3658-TMC
v. )
) ORDER
John Doe #1, John Doe #2, )
)
Defendants. )
)
Plaintiff Adam Roy Rollins., proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e)(D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings.
Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the court transfer this action to the Western District of North Carolina pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (ECF No. 28). The Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he
provided to the court. (ECF No. 29). The Report was not returned to the court, so the Plaintiff is
presumed to have received it. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file specific objections to the
Report, (ECF No. 28 at 9), but failed to do so. The time for Plaintiff to object to the Report has
now expired, and this matter is ripe for review.
The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility
for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,
774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)).
Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to
which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 33 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 3

magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed.
App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982)); see also Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting
party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as
reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection’” and “‘an objection stating
only “I object” preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,
622 (4th Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “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 in order to accept the
recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). 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). However, in the absence of specific objections
to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015)
(citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, failure to file
specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district
court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (quoting Lockert,
843 F.2d at 1019); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court finds no reason to deviate from the magistrate judge’s recommended
disposition as set forth in the Report. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 28),
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 33 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 3

which is incorporated herein. This action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Western District of
North Carolina.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 19, 2024
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 33 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 3