Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Robbie Peterson’s pro se § 1983 and state-law action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The court found no clear error after Peterson failed to file specific objections, and concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim and did not allege personal involvement by the named defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court was required to conduct de novo review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation when the plaintiff filed no specific objections.
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim and failure to allege personal involvement by the named defendants.
Holdings
- When a party files no timely specific objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court need not conduct de novo review and need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record before accepting the recommendation.
- The action was properly dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because the plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 1983 or state law and failed to allege personal involvement by the named defendants.
Key quotations
“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.’”
“Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for the reasons detailed by the magistrate judge in the Report.”
Factual background
Robbie Peterson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleged that a line painted on a prison sidewalk was not painted with safety paint. He claimed the line became slippery when wet and caused him to fall. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's conclusion that Peterson failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or state law and failed to allege the defendants' personal involvement.
Procedural history
Peterson filed an action alleging that a line painted on a prison sidewalk lacked safety paint, became slippery in the rain, and caused him to fall. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim and failure to allege personal involvement by the defendants. After the objection period expired without objections, the district court found no clear error, adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, and dismissed the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.