United States District Court, D. South Carolina
BRYAN HARWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Kevin F. McDonald. See ECF Nos. 8 & 10. The
Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing this action
without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. R & R at pp. 1, 4.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
commenced this action by filing a document entitled
“Complaint for a Writ of Quo Warranto, Prohibition and
Mandamus.” See ECF No. 1. The Magistrate Judge
recommends summarily dismissing this action because
Petitioner has filed his request for mandamus relief in the
wrong court. R & R at pp. 3-4. Petitioner lodges several
objections to the R & R. See ECF No. 10.
Petitioner contends the Magistrate Judge did not address his
request for a writ of quo warranto. A writ of quo warranto is
“[a] common-law writ used to inquire into the authority
by which a public office is held or a franchise is
claimed.” Quo warranto, Black's Law
Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). “A private individual lacks
standing to institute a quo warranto proceeding.”
In re Nabaya, __ F. App'x __, 2017 WL 2992507,
at *1 (4th Cir. July 14, 2017) (citing Newman v. United
States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 545-46 (1915)).
Thus, Petitioner cannot seek such relief. See Id.
(denying the defendant's “petitions for a writ of
quo warranto challenging the district court's authority
over criminal charges against him”).
next argues the Magistrate Judge did not address his request
for a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is
“[a]n extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court
to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or
to prevent a nonjudicial officer or entity from exercising a
power.” Prohibition, Black's Law
Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). This Court is not an appellate
court, and therefore it cannot grant a writ of prohibition.
Moreover, “[a] writ of prohibition is a drastic and
extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the
petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear and
indisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear
abuse of discretion.” In re Gadsden, 689 F.
App'x 756 (4th Cir. 2017). “Because it is a drastic
remedy, a writ of prohibition should only be granted when the
petitioner's right to the requested relief is clear and
indisputable, and there are no other adequate means of
relief[.]” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Here, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is
entitled to a writ of prohibition.
also asserts the Magistrate Judge did not address his request
for damages. Petitioner seeks “$855, 000, 000.00 plus
costs, interest and fees.” See ECF No. 1.
However, “the sizable amount of damages that Plaintiff
seeks to recover from speaks to the frivolity of this
action.” Drayton v. Post & Courier, 2008
WL 5351921, at *3 (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 2008). Plaintiff's
requested damages award is clearly baseless and subject to
dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). See Nagy v. FMC
Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 253 (4th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he
amount sought in an in forma pauperis suit is a permissible
factor to consider when making a frivolity determination
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).”).
Petitioner asserts the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that
Petitioner filed his request for mandamus relief in the wrong
court. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that to the
extent Petitioner is seeking mandamus relief against another
U.S. District Judge (from the Western District of
Pennyslvania), Petitioner cannot seek such relief in this
Court. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of
Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A
district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to
another district court.”); see, e.g.,
Rochester v. Roberts, No. CA 6:12-0586-RBH-KFM, 2012
WL 2803754, at *3 (D.S.C. Apr. 2, 2012), adopted by,
2012 WL 2808205 (D.S.C. July 10, 2012) (noting mandamus
relief against U.S. District Judges was properly sought in
the circuit court of appeals, not the district court);
Grimes v. Joyner, No. CV 8:17-849-JFA-JDA, 2017 WL
2562337, at *3 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), adopted by,
2017 WL 2562057 (D.S.C. June 12, 2017) (“A writ of
mandamus request is inappropriate in this case because this
Court does not have authority to order the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to take
any action. Also, Petitioner seems to have other adequate
means to obtain the relief he desires, such as an appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals or a request for
mandamus relief from that appellate
foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Petitioner's
objections, adopts and incorporates by reference the R &
R [ECF No. 8], and DISMISSES this action
without prejudice and ...