United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.
Greenspan ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro
se and has paid the filing fee in this civil diversity
action. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States
Code, Section 636(b)(1)(A), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g),
D.S.C., pretrial matters involving pro se litigants
are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge
for consideration. After careful review, the undersigned
recommends that the Complaint should be summarily dismissed,
without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process, for the following reasons:
Background and Factual Allegations
own words, the pro se Plaintiff is suing his parents
for "damages arising out of the fractured relationship
between Plaintiff and Defendants' (sic)." (DE# 1, Â¶
7). Proceeding under diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff brings
state law claims against his parents for alleged "breach
of fiduciary relationship, " constructive fraud, civil
conspiracy, and defamation.
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his parents have allegedly
made unspecified statements concerning his "mental
health and competence, and the state of Plaintiff's
personal and professional lives." (DE# 1, Â¶ 9). He
alleges that his parents have attacked his
"character" and held him "out to be an
individual that (sic) is not to be taken seriously." (
Id., Â¶ 10). He complains that his parents have
provided "Plaintiff's family and friends with the
belief that Plaintiff is to blame for the problems that exist
in the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants'
(sic)." ( Id., Â¶ 11). He contends that
unspecified statements by his parents have caused others
"to perceive him as "troubled" and "to
question Plaintiff's ability to think and act for
himself." ( Id., Â¶ 12). Plaintiff insists that
he has "no history of mental health problems." (
Id., Â¶ 14). He claims that he is therefore
"entitled to recover actual, consequential and
incidental damages and punitive damages from Defendants'
(sic)." ( Id., Â¶ 20).
cause of action for "Breach of Fiduciary Duty, "
Plaintiff alleges that:
A fiduciary relationship was established between Plaintiff
and Defendants' (sic) based upon the nature of
Defendants' parental relationship to Plaintiff in which
Plaintiff was, in fact, accustomed to being guided and
influenced by the judgment and advice of Defendants'
(sic), and Defendants' inducement of Plaintiff into
placing his trust and confidence in the integrity and
fidelity of Defendants' (sic) by agreeing to be guided by
Defendants' judgment and advice in reliance of
Defendants' promise of financial support.
(DE# 1, Â¶ 21). Plaintiff complains that his parents advanced
"their own interests ahead of Plaintiff's best
interests" and that "such actions and omissions
constitute Defendants' failures to act with due care,
loyally (sic), and in good faith and with due regard for
Plaintiffs' interests." ( Id., Â¶ 23).
in his cause of action for "constructive fraud, "
Plaintiff alleges that "a fiduciary relationship existed
in which Defendants' (sic) breached their fiduciary
duties owed to Plaintiff." ( Id., Â¶ 27). He
alleges that the "Defendants' (sic) intentionally
and willfully abused and betrayed the trust and confidence
reposed in them by Plaintiff with the intention of advancing
their own interests ahead of Plaintiff's best
interests." ( Id., Â¶ 28).
in his cause of action against his parents for
"conspiracy" with each other, Plaintiff contends
that the "Defendants' (sic) acted together in
denying and continuing to deny their wrongful actions"
and "have continuously relied upon the manipulation of
facts and information with the intentions of absolving
themselves of any wrongdoing and relieving themselves of the
financial burden associated with their promises made to
Plaintiff due to Defendants' (sic) dissatisfaction with
their own judgment and the advice offered to Plaintiff."
( Id., Â¶Â¶ 33-34).
relief, Plaintiff seeks "an award of all actual,
compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages, "
punitive damages, and the costs of suit. Although Plaintiff
is proceeding pro se, he asks for "attorney
fees." (DE# 1, Â¶ 41).
Standard of Review
Screening Under 28 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1915, 1915(e)(2)
under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915 is not applicable in pro se,
non-prisoner, fee-paid cases (such as the present case).
See e.g.,Chong Su Yi v. Social Sec.
Admin., 554 F.Appx. 247 (4th Cir. 2014); Mayhew v.
Duffy, Case No. 2:14-cv-24-RMG-BM, 2014 WL 468938, *1
(D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2014). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge is not
conducting initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915. As
Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2) is also not applicable. See, e.g.,
Bardes v. Magera, Case No. 2:08-487-PMD-RSC, 2008 WL
2627134, *8-10 (D.S.C. June ...