United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Cameron McGowan Currie Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro
se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. ECF No. 1.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On April 12, 2016, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending that this matter be
dismissed based on judicial immunity. ECF No. 10. The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if she failed to do so. Plaintiff filed
no objections within the time for doing so, and her copy of
the Report was not returned to the court.
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. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate
Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the
matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the
Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“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.”) (citation omitted).
8, 2016, this court entered an Order adopting the Report and
dismissing Plaintiff’s case. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff then
filed a motion to reopen her case, explaining that she never
received the Report and therefore could not make objections.
ECF No. 16. Plaintiff verified that the address on file with
the court is correct. Based on these representations, the court
granted Plaintiff’s motion to reopen, vacated its
opinion and judgment and re-mailed a copy of the Order and
the Report to Plaintiff so that she could file objections.
ECF Nos. 17-18. The Order and Report were returned to the
court as undeliverable. ECF No. 19. However, on July 12,
2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion to reopen her case. ECF
No. 21. Although stating that she did not receive the Report,
she also filed Objections to the Report. ECF No. 22.
Plaintiff objected to “Willie H Womble’s immunity
due to constitutional reasons.” Id. She also
stated that she is not suing the state, but Willie Womble
reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the
court agrees with the conclusion of the Report that this
matter should be dismissed without prejudice based on
judicial immunity. The court has considered Plaintiff’s
objections; however, they are unavailing for the reasons set
forth below and in the Report.
immunity extends to all claims for damages arising out of a
judge’s judicial actions. Mireless v. Waco,
509 U.S. 9, 12 (1991); Chu v. Griffith, 771 F.2d 79,
81 (4th Cir. 1985). In order for immunity to apply, the
function performed by the judge must be one normally
performed by a judge, and the party must deal with the judge
in his or her judicial capacity. See King v. Myers,
973 F.2d 354, 357 (4th Cir. 1992). Judicial immunity applies
whether the judge is sued as an individual or a state actor,
as long as he was acting in his judicial capacity when the
alleged actions occurred. It is undisputed that Judge Womble
was performing a judicial function, and that Plaintiff was
dealing with the Judge in his judicial capacity, when the
allegedly discriminatory actions took place. Accordingly, the
court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation
by reference in this Order. This matter is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
 Based on an internet search of the
address given by Plaintiff, it appears that the city given by
Plaintiff may be incorrect. While Plaintiff lists her city as
Lexington, the address that comes up in Google is located in
Swansea. This may be the reason that the mail sent by the
court is not being delivered to Plaintiff. Because of this
confusion, the clerk is directed to send ...