United States District Court, D. South Carolina
July 14, 2014
Jeremy Wilson, Plaintiff,
Fort Jackson, Defendant.
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
The pro se plaintiff, Jeremy Wilson, originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and that court transferred the case to the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges state law claims of defamation, false arrest, and a violation of his constitutional rights.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the court should summarily dismiss this action without prejudice. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on May 30, 2014. The plaintiff has not filed objections and the time within which to do so has expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge has evaluated the plaintiff's complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). The Magistrate Judge correctly notes that the plaintiff has failed to name a defendant amenable to suit in this case; that defendant Fort Jackson is entitled to summary dismissal as it is not a "person" amenable to suit under Bivens ; and that the principle of sovereign immunity applies to the United States or its agencies who have not consented to this suit.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is proper and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.