Whether a pro se prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional violations can survive sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation

No question identified. : UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6248 CECIL JEROME QUINN, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. MARK J. HAYES; HOPE M. BLACKLEY; GAIL MOFFITT; DANIEL CUDE; JAMES CHEEKS; TREY GOWDY, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-06174-HMH) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecil Jerome Quinn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cecil Jerome Quinn, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Shaw v. Foreman, 59 F.4th 121, 126 (4th Cir. 2023) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Quinn v. Hayes, No. 7:23-cv-06174HMH (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7:23-cv-06174-HMH Date Filed 02/08/24 = Entry Number 25 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Cecil Jerome Quinn, Jr., ) ) C.A. No. 7:23-6174-HMH-KFM Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER ) Mark J. Hayes, Hope M. Blackley, ) Gail Moffitt, Daniel Cude, James Cheeks, ) Trey Gowdy, ) ) ) Defendants. ) 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) and District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. In her Report and Recommendation filed on January 16, 2024, Judge Austin recommended dismissing Plaintiff's claims without issuance and service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (R&R 10, ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff filed a number of motions for miscellaneous relief that are confusing and difficult to decipher. However, the court construes the filings as objections to the Report and Recommendation and a motion to appoint counsel. Objections to a report and recommendation must be specific. A report and recommendation carries no “presumptive weight,” and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court 7:23-cv-06174-HMH Date Filed 02/08/24 = Entry Number 25 Page 2 of 3 reviews de novo “those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge” or “recommit the matter . . . with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “To trigger de novo review, 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.’” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). In the absence of specific objections, the court reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and need not give any explanation for adopting the report, Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon review, Plaintiff has not filed any specific objections to the substance of the magistrate judge’s findings or conclusions. Therefore, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the court adopts Judge Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It