United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Olandio Ray Workman, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the above-captioned Defendant. See ECF No. 1. The
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Kevin F. McDonald, who recommends summarily dismissing this
action without prejudice. See ECF Nos. 9 & 11.
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).
a state pretrial detainee being held at the Greenville County
Detention Center, has filed this § 1983 action against
Defendant Cassandra Gorton, his defense attorney representing
him in his pending state criminal case. See ECF No.
1. Plaintiff's allegations relate to his ongoing criminal
proceedings, including his preliminary hearing. The Magistrate
Judge recommends summarily dismissing this action because the
complaint alleges no facts indicating Gorton is a state actor
amenable to suit under § 1983. R & R at p. 3.
Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R and a motion
to amend,  see ECF Nos. 11 & 13, the
Court finds Plaintiff's claims fail for an additional
reason not discussed in the R & R-namely, that this Court
should abstain from hearing this action pursuant to the
Younger abstention doctrine. The Court finds
Younger abstention is appropriate because (1)
Plaintiff is involved in ongoing state criminal proceedings
(2) that implicate important state interests, and because (3)
Plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to raise his federal
claims in the state proceedings. See Sprint Commc'ns,
Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S.Ct. 584 (2013) (addressing the
appropriate grounds for Younger abstention);
Robinson v. Thomas, 855 F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir.
2017) (summarizing the three Younger criteria). By
alleging Defendant Gorton has been ineffective and seeking
her disbarment, Plaintiff is effectively asking this Court to
intervene in a pending state criminal matter. See,
e.g., Hawthorne v. Edgefield Cty., 2016 WL
7228243 (D.S.C. Dec. 14, 2016) (summarily dismissing based on
Younger abstention where the plaintiff alleged his
defense counsel was ineffective in pending state criminal
proceedings); Bradley v. Salisbury Police Dep't,
2013 WL 6592489 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2013) (summarily dismissing
a case based on Younger abstention where the
plaintiff was involved in ongoing state criminal
proceedings), aff'd, 562 F. App'x 166 (4th
Cir. 2014) (“[W]e affirm for the reasons stated by the
Plaintiff has not made a showing of “extraordinary
circumstances” justifying federal interference with the
state proceedings. See Robinson, 855 F.3d at 286
(“A federal court may disregard Younger's
mandate to abstain from interfering with ongoing state
proceedings only where ‘extraordinary
circumstances' exist that present the possibility of
irreparable harm.”). Accordingly, the Court modifies
the R & R to reflect this additional reason for
dismissal, and overrules Plaintiff's (4th Cir. 2012)
(stating a court should deny a request to amend if amendment
would be futile), and the Court will deny his motion to
For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules
Plaintiff's objections, adopts the R & R [ECF No. 9]
as modified herein, and DISMISSES
this action without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. The Court DENIES
Plaintiff's motion to amend [ECF No. 13] as futile.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule ...