United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
the court for review is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on May 2, 2019
(ECF No. 14). The Report addresses Plaintiff Maceo Sandy
Scott, Jr.'s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint alleging
violations of his constitutional rights by the Fifth Judicial
Circuit General Sessions Court and South Carolina Circuit
Judges G. Thomas Cooper and L. Casey Manning. (ECF No. 14 at
1.) The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report and incorporates it herein by reference.
For the reasons set out in the Report, the court
DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No.
1) without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards,
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 14 at 1-7.) As brief background, on
March 26, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the
Complaint against the Fifth Judicial Circuit and Judges G.
Thomas Cooper, Jr., and L. Casey Manning. (ECF No. 1.) On
April 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered an order
granting Plaintiff an opportunity to correct pleading defects
by amending his Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was
informed that an amended complaint would replace the original
Complaint and should be complete in and of itself.
(Id.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an
amended complaint or correction of the identified
deficiencies would result in the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation that the district court should dismiss the
claim without leave for further amendment. (Id. at
6-7.) On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff responded with a letter in
response to the order; however, Plaintiff merely restated his
original allegations. (ECF No. 11.)
2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered her Report. (ECF No.
14.) The Report recommends dismissing Plaintiff's
Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice for three (3)
reasons. (Id. at 3-6.) First, considering
Plaintiff's claims against Judges Manning and Cooper, the
Magistrate Judge reasoned that, “[a]s Plaintiff's
claims against [the] Judges . . . relate to their judicial
actions, they are entitled to judicial immunity.”
(Id. at 3-4.) Second, turning to Plaintiff's
naming of the Fifth Judicial Circuit General Sessions Court
as a defendant, the Magistrate Judge concluded “the
‘Fifth Judicial Circuit General Sessions Court'. .
. is not a ‘person' subject to suit under §
1983.” (Id. at 4.) Finally, “[t]o the
extent Plaintiff seeks dismissal of his state charges, his
Complaint is subject to dismissal based upon the
Younger doctrine.” (Id. at 5.) As
part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties
that they may file specific, written objections to the Report
within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of the Report.
(Id. at 7.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court,
and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. Id. at 271. This court engages in a de
novo review of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which the parties have made specific
objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court may accept,
reject or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2, 2019, as part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge notified
the parties of their right to file objections by May 16,
2019. (ECF No. 14 at 7.) Neither of the parties filed any
objections to the Report by this date. However, Plaintiff did
submit a letter dated May 14, 2019, requesting that the court
“issue the summons on all necessary personnel”
and hold “a fair hearing from all involved
individuals.” (ECF No. 16.)
absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report,
this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the recommendations without modification. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Absent objections, the court must only ensure that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendations. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). If a party
fails to file specific, written objections to the Report, the
party forfeits the right to appeal the court's decision
concerning the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly,
since none of the parties filed any objections to the Report,
and the court observes no clear error on the face of the
record, the court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report.
See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718
F.2d at 199.
thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds
that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in this
case. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14)
and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set
out in the Report, the court DISMISSES
Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.