United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
Muttaqin Fatir Abdullah (“Abdullah”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action
against Defendant Ernest A. Finney, III,
(“Finney”), in his individual and official
capacity, and Defendant James Turner (“Turner”)
in his individual and official capacity, (collectively
“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
is a pre-trial detainee at the Sumter-Lee Regional Detention
Center. (ECF No. 1, p. 2). On April 21, 2016, Abdullah filed
this action alleging Defendants violated his rights under the
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution; manipulated, harassed, and unlawfully
incarcerated him; and lack sufficient evidence to indict
(ECF No. 1). In addition, Abdullah moved for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, (ECF
No. 2), which was granted on May 20, 2016, by Magistrate
Judge Kevin McDonald, (ECF No. 7).
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court summarily dismiss this action without
prejudice. (ECF No. 9). The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this
Court incorporates those facts and standards without a
recitation. In addition, the Court takes judicial
notice that, according to the Sumter County Third Judicial
Circuit Public Index, Abdullah was indicted on May 21, 2016,
on all four warrants mentioned in his complaint, (ECF No. 1),
and provided via attachment, (ECF No. 1-1). See Fed.
R. Evid. 201.
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on May 20, 2016. (ECF No. 9). The
Magistrate Judge gave Abdullah until June 6, 2016, to file
objections. (Id.). On May 31, 2016, Abdullah filed
his objections to the Report. (ECF No. 11). Thus, this matter
is ripe for the Court's review.
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report 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. § 636(b)(1). 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).
Abdullah attempts to make two objections to the Report.
However, only one objection can be construed to constitute a
specific objection to the Report, and it is without
merit.Abdullah asserts that the defense of
qualified immunity does not always prevail in cases against
state and government officials. (ECF No. 11 at 2). In
support, Abdullah cites to Abdullah v. Seba, 2016 WL
3916007 (3d Cir. July 20, 2016) (regarding a Bivens
action wherein the Court ruled that, even if a viable claim
had been presented, the defendants were protected by
it is true that qualified immunity does not always apply to
protect a particular individual,  the Magistrate Judge has
recommended dismissal of this action without prejudice based
upon other grounds. Therefore, an analysis regarding the
applicability of qualified immunity in this case is not
case, Finney is protected by absolute immunity in his
individual capacity because the alleged wrongful
conduct-Finney's failure to indict Abdullah-is
specifically regarding an act “intimately associated
with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 n. 33
(1976). Thus, Abdullah's objection as to
qualified immunity is inapplicable, and Finney is immune from
civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to
absolute immunity in his individual capacity.
regard to the allegations against Finney in his official
capacity, Finney is considered to be a State officer and,
therefore, he is unable to be sued in his official capacity
for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. See
Williams v. Condon, 553 S.E.2d 496, 508 (S.C. Ct. App.
2001) (holding claims for money damages raised against the
State attorney general and circuit solicitor in their
official capacities were not permissible under Section 1983
because they were State officials); see also Will v.
Michigan Dep't. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989) (holding “neither a State nor its officials
acting in their official capacities are ‘persons'
under § 1983”).
it is proper that this action against Finney be summarily
dismissed because Abdullah seeks monetary relief and Finney
is immune from such relief in his individual ...