Owl Feather- Gorbey v. John or Jane Doe ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Chief Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey, C/A No. 0:23-cv-3229-JFA-PJG Plaintiff, v. ORDER John or Jane Doe, Attorney General State of S.C.; Henry McMaster, Governor State of S.C.; John or Jane Doe, Att Gen State of Ga; John or Jane Doe, Governor State of Ga; John or Jane Doe, Governor State of Ala.; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen. State of Ala.; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen. State of TN.; John or Jane Doe, Governor State of TN.; John or Jane Doe, Governor State of Ky; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen State of Ky; John or Jane Doe, Governor State of Wiva; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen. State of Wiva; John or Jane Doe, Governor. State of Md.; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen. State of Md.; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen. District of Columbia; John or Jane Doe, Mayor. District of Columbia; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen. CommonWealth of VA.; John or Jane Doe, Governor. CommonWealth of VA.; John or Jane Doe, Att. Gen. State of N.C.; John or Jane Doe, Governor. State of N.C.; John or Jane Doe, (Chief) Tribal Counsel Southern Monacan; Uncle Sam, U.S. Attorney General; Cho-Mo-Joe Biden, Impersonating U.S. President; Federal Bureau of Prisons Director John or Jane Doe, D.C.,, Defendants. Chief Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 issued an order informing Plaintiff that he would need pay the filing fee to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff failed to respond or pay the fee. After Plaintiff failed to respond, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 13). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this matter should be summarily dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 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 August 18, 2023. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by September 1, 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); 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). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th 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 this matter 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. 13). Consequently, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. peg Cader tons October 2, 2023 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge