United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Complaint
alleging Town of Forest Acres Municipal Court “and all
its actors are conducting an unlawful RICO operation against
the people of South Carolina, ” as they are
“private corporations masquerading as a Government
entity.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff was ticketed by a Forest
Acres police officer and pled nolo contendere to the
charge and paid a fine. Id.
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 Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On October 29, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending this matter be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No.
9. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures
and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed a
letter with the court, acknowledging receipt of mail from the
United States District Court, but noting he refused it and
returned it to the court (although he “opened [it] by
mistake”) because it “was addressed to a
fictitious, non existent two letter abbreviation and/or
numbered area.” ECF No. 12. As the Report was initially
sent to an address “from previous cases, ” as
noted on the docket (see ECF No. 5), instead of the address
contained in the attachments to his Complaint, the court
entered an Order directing re-service of the Report at the
address listed in the documents filed in support of the
Complaint (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff thereafter filed two
documents: a “Mandatory Judicial Notice”
regarding the alleged removal of his state court criminal
action (ECF No. 17) and another letter, nearly identical to
the one filed at ECF No. 12, again refusing and returning the
copy of the Report (ECF No. 18).
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).
Report recommends Plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed
because federal jurisdiction is lacking, as there is not
complete diversity and the Complaint does not allege a claim
arising under the Constitution or federal statutes. ECF No. 9
at 3-4. The Report further notes although Plaintiff
“provides a list of constitutional amendments that he
claims the defendants violated, ” he does not
“make any factual allegations or argument that would
plausibly show the defendants violated Plaintiff's
constitutional rights.” Id. at 4.
Complaint, although Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated his
First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, Thirteenth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States
Constitution, he does not specify how Defendants did so, nor
does he allege any facts detailing any violation. Based on
Plaintiff's filing entitled “Mandatory Judicial
Notice, ” it appears Plaintiff may be attempting to
remove a “compulsory counterclaim” to his traffic
ticket. ECF No. 17. He notes he removed to this
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Id. He also
states “jurisdiction for this action is brought under
18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 USC - Conspiracy against rights and
deprivation thereof and under Title 42, Sec. 1983, 1985, and
1986.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff also asks the court
to “explain what corrections I need to make.”
Plaintiff refused and returned the mail containing the Report
twice, despite re-mailing to the address provided by
Plaintiff in this action, there are no objections to
consider. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to
state a claim. As Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to
support a federal claim, the court lacks jurisdiction and is
unable to “explain what corrections (he needs) to
make.” After review of the record of this matter, the
applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the court adopts and incorporates the
Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Plaintiff claims he pled nolo
contendre to the charge and paid a ...