United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
James B. Curry, #186737, Plaintiff,
United States Supreme Court; Scott S. Harris, Clerk of Court for the Supreme Court of the United States, Defendants.
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on a United States Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that this Court should dismiss the complaint in
this case without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process. ECF No. 8.
August 2, 2016, Plaintiff James B. Curry, proceeding pro se,
filed this action against the United States Supreme Court and
Scott S. Harris, Clerk of Court for the United States Supreme
Court (collectively “Defendants”) alleging a
violation of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. In
addition, Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 2, which
was granted on August 12, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Shiva V.
Hodges, ECF No. 7.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and opines that this Court should dismiss the
complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process because Defendants are protected by
judicial or quasi-judicial immunity. ECF No. 8. 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. The parties were advised of
their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on August 12, 2016. ECF Nos. 8, 9. The Magistrate
Judge gave Plaintiff until August 29, 2016, to file
objections. Id. However, no objections were filed to
the Report. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court's
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).
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
Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and
Recommendation, as modified, ECF No. 8. Therefore, this
complaint is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process because Defendants
are protected by judicial or quasi-judicial immunity.
IS SO ORDERED
 Plaintiff does not specify the manner
in which he brings this claim, and the Magistrate Judge
couches same as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
However, Defendants are either federal entities or employees
and, as such, it appears to be more appropriate that this
action is brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Nonetheless, as the United States Supreme Court stated in
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, “it would be
‘untenable to draw a distinction for purposes of
immunity law between suits brought against state officials
under § 1983 and suits brought directly under the
Constitution against federal officials.'” 457 U.S.
800, 818 n.30 (1982) (quoting Butz v. Economou, 438
U.S. 478, 504 (1978)). Therefore, despite this modification,
the Report's analysis remains correct based upon
Defendants' absolute immunity.
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) (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 Courts adds to the Report's
analysis that the United States Supreme Court was acting
within its jurisdiction in denying Plaintiff's petition
for a writ of certiorari and his request for a rehearing.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 10
(“Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of
right, but of judicial discretion.”). Therefore, it is
protected by absolute judicial immunity. Furthermore, Scott
Harris, Clerk of Court for the United States Supreme Court,
was fulfilling an integral role in the judicial process as a
designee in sending letters to Plaintiff notifying him of the
denials of his petition and request for rehearing. See
Jarvis v. Chasanow, 448 F. App'x. 406 (4th Cir.
2011) (affirming dismissal and citing cases ...