United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
ORDER AND OPINION
the court for review is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on May 2, 2019
(ECF No. 14). 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 Maceo Sandy Scott,
Jr.'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 1-4.) As brief background, on
March 26, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against
Defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
(ECF No. 1.) On April 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted
Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint. (ECF No. 8.)
On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter in response in
which he restated his original allegations. (ECF No. 11 at
2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered her Report. (ECF No.
14.) The Report recommends dismissing the Complaint without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process because
(1) Defendant Judge Maurer is entitled to absolute immunity
from Plaintiff's claims because the claims relate to his
judicial actions; (2) Defendant Dutch Fork Magistrate is not
a person and, thus, the second element of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 cannot be established against this Defendant; and (3)
Plaintiff's claims related to his conviction and sentence
are “barred by the holding in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).” Id. at
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;
the responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
270-1 (1976). 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. §
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.) Neither of the parties filed any
objections to the Report by this date. Instead, Plaintiff
submit a letter dated May 14, 2019, requesting that the court
“issue the summons on Dutch Fork Magistrate Wayne
Maurer” 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
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
Plaintiff Maceo Sandy Scott, Jr.'s Complaint (ECF No. 1)
without prejudice and without issuance and service