United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
Evans (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, brings this action against York County,
Inc. and B.H. Management, Pace River Apartment, (collectively
“Defendants”), claiming Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. (ECF No. 73).
reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to
this action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opined that this
Court should dismiss this case with prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 78 p. 7). 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. On October
30, 2017, the Court received Plaintiff's objection to the
Report. (ECF No. 81). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
Court is charged with making a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report to which specific objections
are 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).
However, a district court is only required to conduct a
de novo review of the specific portions of the
Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);
Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole,
974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific
objections to portions of the Magistrate's Report, 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).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
December 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint
against York County; City of Rick Hill; B.H. Management;
Paces River Apartment; Magistrate Judge Clifford Berinsky;
Thomas I. Howard; Brownlee Law Firm, PLLC; Dina D. Biggs;
Alyssa Pruitt; and Land Star Transportation Logistic, Inc.,
alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. (ECF No.
1). This Court dismissed the Complaint on March 29, 2016.
(ECF No. 15). Thereafter, Plaintiff appealed, and the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff could remedy
the deficiencies in his original complaint by filing an
amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 18, 23).
November 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the City of Rock Hill, Inc., and York County, Inc.
(ECF No. 35). Thereafter, the Magistrate issued a report and
recommendation. (ECF No. 43). This Court subsequently adopted
the Magistrate's recommendation and ordered that the
amended complaint be summarily dismissed. (ECF No. 46).
Plaintiff again appealed to the Fourth Circuit, and the
Fourth Circuit remanded the case, giving Plaintiff the option
to file another amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 49, 54).
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on August 28, 2017
(ECF No. 66), and he subsequently filed a third amended
complaint on September 25, 2017 (ECF No. 73). Plaintiff filed
his third amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, which exempts him from the administrative costs of
proceeding with the lawsuit.
Plaintiff's third amended complaint, he challenges the
rulings made by the Magistrate Court, which ultimately
resulted in his eviction. (ECF No. 73 p. 6). In his Objection
to the Magistrate's Report, Plaintiff asserts that
“[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
preclude the federal court from proceeding in this
case.” (ECF No. 81 p. 2). Specifically, Plaintiff
claims that he is not challenging the state court's
decision. (ECF No. 81 p. 3). Instead, he asserts that the
“defendant violated his due process constitutional
rights for a fair hearing and processing eviction, ”
and thus “the Rooker-Felman doctrine does not
apply.” (ECF No. 81 p. 3).
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, a federal
district court may not review the final determinations of
state or local courts. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 463 (1983); see Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923) (“The
jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly
original.”). Moreover, this Court does not have
jurisdiction “over challenges to state court decisions
in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even
if those challenges allege that the state court's action
was unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at
476; see Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Virginia,
122 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Feldman,
460 U.S. at 486-87; Leonard v. Suthard, 927 F.2d
168, 169-70 (4th Cir. 1991)) (“The
[Rooker-Feldman] doctrine extends not only to
constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by the state
courts but also to claims that are ‘inextricably
intertwined' with a state court judgment.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff's argument is unfounded, and this
Court must adopt the Magistrate's recommendation.
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 as
modified. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report (ECF No.
78), and the ...