United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Patrice Wyman, an Asiatic Indigenous American Native Woman; Julius Wyman, Jr., an Asiatic Indigenous American Native Man, Plaintiffs,
Mr. James E. Chellis, Master-in-Equity Dorchester County South Carolina; Ms. Margret L. Bailey, Register of Deeds Dorchester County South Carolina; Jason M. Taroh, SC BAR #72837; Nicole Shlomoy, Paralegal; Joseph Pensahene, CEO, President, Director Selene Finance, LP; Selene Finance LP; First Federal Bank, Charleston, SC; South State Bank, N. Charleston, SC; Dorchester County South Carolina; Dorchester County Sheriffs Office, The Geheren Firm, PC; Mr. Steve Woodward, Real Estate Agent; Wells Fargo Bank; Charleston Homes for You, Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
Richard Mark Gergel Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("R. & R.") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 35)
recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint without prejudice and without issuance of service
of process. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts
the R. & R. as the order of the Court.
Background and Relevant Facts
Court adopts the facts as outlined in the R. & R. (Dkt. No.
35 at 2-3.) The record shows that a judgment of foreclosure
was entered against Plaintiffs by the Master-in-Equity for
Dorchester County, South Carolina on September 14, 2017.
Plaintiffs later learned that their property had been sold to
Defendant Steve Woodard, a real estate investor. Woodard
ordered Plaintiffs to vacate the property and stated that he
would seek an order of eviction if they failed to vacate.
(Id.) Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging
that Defendants lack the authority to bring the state
foreclosure action and other claims including fraudulent
misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, conversion,
trespass to chattels, and inland piracy. (Dkt. No. 7 at
Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se
litigants to allow the development of a potentially
meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319
(1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The
requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege
facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the
Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep 't of
Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Magistrate Judge liberally construed the Amended Complaint to
consider Plaintiffs' possible theories of relief and
recommended that this Court dismiss the action after
determining that Plaintiffs failed to provide a basis for
federal court jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge provided
several reasons in support of this recommendation, including,
but not limited to (1) that although Plaintiffs listed
several federal criminal statutes in their Amended Complaint,
they did not argue that any of those statutes creates a
private cause of action or allege facts that would support
such a claim; (2) that, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to have
Defendants criminally prosecuted, Plaintiffs have no
constitutional right or judicially cognizable interest in
such prosecutions; (3) that Plaintiffs' Section 1986
claim is subject to dismissal because they failed to meet the
heightened pleading standard for Section 1985(3) conspiracy
claims; and (4) that, to the extent Plaintiffs are seeking
review, appeal, or injunction with respect to the final
judgment or other orders in the state court foreclosure
action, they are not entitled to relief pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, the doctrine established in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 (1971), and the
party has filed objections to the R. & R., and the deadline
to file objections has passed. In the absence of any specific
objections, "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." See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation omitted). This Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge has correctly applied the controlling law to
the facts of this case.
reasons set forth above, the Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt.
No. 35) as the order of the Court. Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint is dismissed without ...