United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
Joseph Coyne (“Coyne”), filed this action pro se
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the South Carolina
Secretary of State (“SCSOS”) and the South
Carolina Republican Party (“SCGOP”) seeking a
declaration that the filing fee and loyalty pledge
requirements violate his rights under the First, Fourteenth,
and Twenty-Fourth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. (ECF No. 1). On September 15, 2015, Coyne filed
a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 2). On November
16, 2015, SCGOP filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (ECF No.
18). On November 18, 2015, SCSOS filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). (ECF No. 21). Because Coyne is proceeding pro se,
the Court entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of
the importance of the motions and of the need for him to file
adequate responses. (ECF Nos. 19, 22). On December 10, 2015,
Coyne timely responded to both motions to dismiss. (ECF No.
24). On December 29, 2015, Coyne filed a motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 25). On March 18, 2016, SCSOS supplemented
its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court deny Coyne's motion for
preliminary injunction, grant SCSOS's motion to dismiss,
deny SCGOP's motion to dismiss, and deny Coyne's
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 36). The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and
standards without a recitation. The parties were advised of
their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on July 26, 2016. The Magistrate Judge gave the
parties until August 12, 2016, to file objections. However,
no objections were filed. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court
is not required to give an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983).
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation,
(ECF No. 36), and denies Coyne's motion for preliminary
injunction, grants SCSOS's motion to dismiss it as a
party pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), denies SCGOP's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and
denies Coyne's motion for summary judgment.
Clerk is directed to return this action back to the
Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
 The Court does not adopt the legal
standard as stated on page 17 of the Report inasmuch as it
states, “Courts should not dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim unless ‘after accepting all
well-pleaded allegations in [the plaintiff's] favor, it
appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of
facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.”
This standard was overruled in Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 560-63 (2007); see also
Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 n.1 (4th Cir.
2009). However, under the proper standard, the result remains
unchanged. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570) (“To