United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Ralph E. Dixon, Plaintiff,
H. Clay Carruth, Jr.; Roderick M. Todd; James Elmo Davis, Jr., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff, Ralph E. Dixon, proceeding pro se, brings
this civil action against the defendants. The Complaint has
been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is
before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the
Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court
concludes the defendants should be summarily dismissed
without prejudice and issuance and service of process.
Factual and Procedural Background
Complaint is a mostly blank standard complaint form that
names three state magistrates as defendants and states as the
basis for the court's jurisdiction: “supremacy of
the law's clause, limitations on state powers', U.S.
Amendment 6, 7, 13, 14, Rules of Law.” (Compl., ECF No.
1 at 1-3.) The body of the Complaint provides no other
substantive information. However, Plaintiff attaches to the
Complaint letters he has written to government officials
complaining about his treatment during various traffic stops
and in county magistrates' courts during trials
concerning Plaintiff's purported traffic violations.
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se
Complaint. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence
an action in federal court without prepaying the
administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. This
statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a
finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,
” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
court is required to liberally construe pro se
complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d
206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of
liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore
a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set
forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See
Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th
Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil
court finds that Plaintiff's complaint should be
summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Plaintiff only lists several
provisions of the United States Constitution as the
court's basis for jurisdiction, but he fails to name a
recognizable cause of action or state what relief he seeks in
this matter. Such conclusory statements without supporting
facts or citation to specific legal precedent establishing a
cause of action fails to adequately establish the court's
jurisdiction over this matter. See Burgess v.
Charlottesville Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 477 F.2d 40,
43-44 (4th Cir. 1973) (“[T]he mere assertion in a
pleading that the case is one involving the construction or
application of the federal laws does not authorize the
District Court to entertain the suit[, ] nor does federal
jurisdiction attach on the bare assertion that a federal
right or law has been infringed or violated or that the suit
takes its origin in the laws of the United States.”)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). But to the
extent Plaintiffs Complaint could be liberally construed to
state a claim against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional
rights, Plaintiffs claim would fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because state magistrates are
immune from such suits. See Mireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (providing that judges are entitled to
absolute immunity from suit, not just the ultimate assessment
of damages, for judicial actions taken within their
jurisdiction); Pressly v. Gregory, 831 F.2d 514, 517
(4th Cir. 1987) (finding state magistrates are entitled to
absolute judicial immunity for act performed in their
the court recommends that the Complaint be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
attention is directed to the important notice on the next
of Right to File Objections to Report and
Recommendation The parties are advised that they may
file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must
specifically identify the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for
such objections. “[I]n 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 ...