United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE, Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se
Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF No. 1;
see also ECF Nos. 3, 4, 10, 17 (supplemental
attachments to complaint). Plaintiff's allegations refer
to his mother's death at Palmetto Health Richland
(“PHR”) in 1986, which Plaintiff suggests is
suspicious because it occurred on his mother's birthday,
as well as Plaintiff's concerns with PHR
representatives' response when, in April 2017, he warned
PHR against holding sex education classes on a Sunday.
Documents attached to the complaint and multiple supplemental
filings may suggest a broader set of concerns as they include
but are not limited to articles and notes relating to a fire
at Aretha Franklin's home, police shootings, a criminal
trespass warning PHR issued to Plaintiff, and documents
relating to Plaintiff's father's health,
homeowner's insurance, and bills.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 (B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On January 18, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending the complaint be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance of service of process
because the allegations do not support the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 19 at 5. Specifically,
the Report notes that while Plaintiff relies on 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 as the legal basis for his claim(s), he has not
alleged facts giving rise to an inference Defendants acted
under color of state (or local) law, a necessary element of
such a claim. In addition, the Report recommends dismissal
because the allegations are “implausible, frivolous,
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections. Plaintiff's timely
filed objections read, in full, as follows:
Your Honor, Not to take away the gravity of any portion of my
overall complaint I would like to address one aspect of my
case which you failed to acknowledge. C.E.O. Charles P.
Beaman of Palmetto Health Richland; Major Joey Smith and
President John J. Singerling all of which possessing college
and post graduate degrees failed to see the risks in allowing
administrative director Diane Bagnal-Moody to proceed forward
with her agenda.
In the name of reason and more importantly safety, they
ignored the threat. And a lay-person without the credentials
which they themselves possess had to point out their flaws.
And at a real and imminent risk to his health and well-being,
specifically myself. Consequently it is on these grounds that
I would like to formally appeal your decision to dismiss my
ECF No. 21 at 1.
attaches one page of the Report, highlighted to emphasize
language addressing his attempt to warn PHR against holding
sex education classes on Sunday and PHR's reaction. He
also attaches an article relating to the sentencing of Larry
Nassar and a headline that reads “#MeToo struggles to
transform recording industry.” Plaintiff does not point
to any existing allegation that the complained of events were
taken by a Defendant acting under color of state law. Neither
does he suggest any amendment that might cure this
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a
specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed
objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted).
objections appear to focus on the failure of the three
Defendants who are associated with PHR to heed
Plaintiff's warning against teaching sex education
classes on a Sunday. While this may suggest these allegations
are of greatest concern to him, the objections ...