8:08-cv-04049-GRA Date Filed 03/06/09 Entry Number 18 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
`
` ORDER
`C/A No. 8:08-4049-GRA-BHH
`
`_
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`Oscar Lee Sykes, Jr., #310285,
`former # 138335,
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`vs.
`
`Michael Frank;
`Mark Sanford;
`Andre Bauer;
`TomFox;
`Susan Safford;
`Anna Cunningham;
`Marian H. Lee;
`Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II;
` Robert T. King; Larry
`W. Propes;
`Sharon Welch Meyer;
`Thomas E.
`Rogers, III;
`R. Bryan Harwell;
`Karen J. Williams;
`Dennis W. Shedd;
`Diana G. Motz;
`Williams K. Suter;
`Leoniads Ralph Mecham;
`John Doe;
`Attorney General;
`Henry E. Brown Jr;
`Richard B. Cheney;
`George W. Bush, Jr.; and
`Horry County, South Carolina.
`Names of all the people the suit is...
`against individually, and in their
`official capacities,
`
`Defendants.
`
`This matter comes before the Court for review of the magistrate’s Report and
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
`
` ORDER
`C/A No. 8:08-4049-GRA-BHH
`
`_
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`Oscar Lee Sykes, Jr., #310285,
`former # 138335,
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`vs.
`
`Michael Frank;
`Mark Sanford;
`Andre Bauer;
`TomFox;
`Susan Safford;
`Anna Cunningham;
`Marian H. Lee;
`Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II;
` Robert T. King; Larry
`W. Propes;
`Sharon Welch Meyer;
`Thomas E.
`Rogers, III;
`R. Bryan Harwell;
`Karen J. Williams;
`Dennis W. Shedd;
`Diana G. Motz;
`Williams K. Suter;
`Leoniads Ralph Mecham;
`John Doe;
`Attorney General;
`Henry E. Brown Jr;
`Richard B. Cheney;
`George W. Bush, Jr.; and
`Horry County, South Carolina.
`Names of all the people the suit is...
`against individually, and in their
`official capacities,
`
`Defendants.
`
`This matter comes before the Court for review of the magistrate’s Report and
`
`
`
`8:08-cv-04049-GRA Date Filed 03/06/09 Entry Number 18 Page 2 of 4
`
`Recommendation filed on March 3, 2009 made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
`
`636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.) and the plaintiff’s motion for an
`
`extension of time to respond to the Report and Recommendation. The magistrate
`
`recommends that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance
`
`of service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and be deemed a “strike”
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for purposes of application of 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1915(g) in future filings by Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
`
`pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
`
`drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
`
`This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to
`
`allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall,
`
`454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
`
`First, the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is denied. Under Rule 6 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court may grant an extension for good cause
`
`shown. However, it is the opinion of this Court that the plaintiff has not sufficiently
`
`demonstrated good cause. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for an extension is
`
`denied. Second, the magistrate recommends this action be dismissed without
`
`prejudice and without service of process. The magistrate makes only a
`
`recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and
`
`responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v.
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`8:08-cv-04049-GRA Date Filed 03/06/09 Entry Number 18 Page 3 of 4
`
`Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo
`
`determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
`
`objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
`
`the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
`
`This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate
`
`with instructions." Id.
`
`In order for objections to be considered by a United States
`
`District Judge, the objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and
`
`Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. FED. R.
`
`CIV. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984);
`
`Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn.1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have . . .
`
`held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general
`
`and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
`
`magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
`
`44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the
`
`Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for
`
`adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983). The
`
`plaintiff has not offered any objections within his time to respond.
`
`After reviewing the record, and the Report and Recommendation this Court finds
`
`that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore,
`
`this Court adopts the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
`
`Wherefore, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`8:08-cv-04049-GRA Date Filed 03/06/09 Entry Number 18 Page 4 of 4
`
`service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (frivolous), (ii) (failure to
`
`state a claim), and (iii) (immune defendants). Additionally, this dismissal of this case
`
`is deemed a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for purposes of application
`
`of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in future filings by Plaintiff.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Anderson, South Carolina
`
`March 6, 2009
`
`NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
`
`Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this Order within
`
`thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Appellate Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified within Rule
`
`4, will waive the right to appeal.
`
`Page 4 of 4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
