United States District Court, D. South Carolina
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 15), recommending that this action be partially summarily dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 21). For the reasons stated below, the Court the adopts the R & R in part and dismisses the claims against Defendants David Matthews, Matthew Walker, and the Colleton County Sheriff's Office without prejudice.
I. Legal Standard
A. Report & Recommendation
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, 270-71 (1976). The 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). However, as to portions of the R & R to which no objection is made, this Court "must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Additionally, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the R & R in the absence of specific objections by the parties. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983) ("Absent objection, we do not believe that any explanation need be given for adopting the report.").
B. Summary Dismissal
Pro se complaints are construed liberally to allow the development of meritorious claims. See, e.g., Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978) ("[A] complaint, especially a pro se complaint, should not be dismissed summarily unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief....") (internal quotations omitted). However, the requirement of a liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a plaintiff's clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. See Well v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. for City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990) ("The special judicial solicitude with which a district court should view pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate."). Furthermore, the Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action sua sponte if the claim is "frivolous or malicious, " "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989).
A. Defendant David Matthews
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Matthews' legal representation in his criminal matter is constitutionally inadequate and seeks relief against Defendant Matthews under Section 1983. (Dkt. No. 1). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the claims against Matthews because a public defender does not act under the color of state law. (Dkt. No. 15 at 3-5). Plaintiff objects that "Matthews acted under color of state law when failing to file a motion for a speedy trial as requested by Plaintiff." (Dkt. No. 21 at 4).
It is well-settled that an attorney does not act under color of state law when performing traditional functions as counsel, even if he is a county employee. See, e.g., Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) ("[W]e decide only that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in criminal proceedings."); Conner v. Donnelly, 42 F.3d 220, 223 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting that while state employment is generally sufficient to render the defendant a state actor, that is not true in the case of a public defender). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a Section 1983 cause of action against Defendant Matthews. The Court also agrees that diversity jurisdiction does not exist, and the Court lacks jurisdiction over any legal negligence claim Plaintiff may have. Therefore, the claims against Defendant Matthews are dismissed without prejudice.
B. Defendant Matthew Walker
Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of Defendant Walker. (Dkt. No. 21 at 4). This Court agrees that he should be dismissed because there are ...