United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
ORDER AND OPINION
matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
filed on April 3, 2018. (ECF No. 13.) The Report recommends
that the court summarily dismiss Plaintiff Tashonby
Wilson's Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 13.) For
the reasons set forth herein, the court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report
and DIMISSISES the Complaint WITHOUT
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 13 at 1-6.) As brief background,
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this instant Complaint on March 6,
2018. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint alleges
misconduct by Defendant Judge Keesley (“Defendant
Keesley”) during Plaintiff's bond hearing because
Defendant Keesley purportedly allowed Defendant Prosecutor
Bradley Pogue (“Defendant Pogue”) to “make
mockery of the law whereas Judge Keesley participated by
allowing [the] prosecutor to present arguments of the case
unknown to the defendant.” (Id. at 1-2.)
Plaintiff further alleges in his Complaint that he was
deprived of due process because he was held without bond
prior to a trial. (Id. at 4.)
Report concluded that even though Plaintiff failed to
indicate the relief sought and “failed to state a
recognizable legal claim, ” the court construed the
Complaint “as seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.” (ECF No. 13 at 3.) According to the
Report, although the relief Plaintiff sought was an
investigation into Defendant Keesley's actions during his
bond hearing, such relief is unavailable in federal court
unless it is “in the most narrow and extraordinary
circumstances.” See Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d
881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). (Id.) The Magistrate Judge
concluded that since Plaintiff has an ongoing state
proceeding that implicates an important state interest in
which Plaintiff has an opportunity to raise federal claims,
Plaintiff is “precluded from seeking federal habeas
relief at this time.” (Id. at 4.) Further,
claims in which Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 would “fail because
[D]efendant's would be immune from suit.”
(Id.) Here, Defendant Pogue would be immune from
suit, according to the Magistrate judge, because his actions
at the bond hearing were “intimately associated with
the judicial phase of the criminal process.”
(Id. at 5 (citation omitted).) Similarly, Defendant
Keesley has the protections of judicial immunity from damage
claims arising out of his judicial actions. (Id.
(citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991)).)
The Magistrate Judge observed that judges are not to be
deprived of their judicial immunity because of allegations of
erroneous actions or actions taken maliciously. (Id.
(citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57
parties were apprised of their opportunity to file specific,
written objections to the Report on April 3, 2018. (ECF No.
13 at 7.) Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate
Judge's Report on April 17, 2018. (ECF No. 15.) Within
his Objection, Plaintiff does not mention any issues with the
Magistrate Judge's Report. (ECF No. 15.) Instead,
Plaintiff reargues that his due process rights are violated
because he continues to be incarcerated prior to the trial of
this matter. (Compare ECF No. 1 at 4 with,
ECF No. 15 at 1.) Defendants did not respond to either the
Report or Plaintiff's Objection.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation, while this court “retains the ultimate
responsibility of decision making.” 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 to which specific objections are made.
Diamond v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). In the absence of specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court is
not required to give any explanation for adopting the Report.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983). Rather, “in 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
recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Thus, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit
the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
court is required to interpret pro se documents
liberally and will hold those documents to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); see also
Hardin v. United States, C/A No. 7:12-cv-0118-GRA, 2012
WL 3945314, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012). Additionally,
pro se documents must be construed in a manner,
“no matter how inartfully pleaded, to see whether they
could provide a basis for relief.” Garret v.
Elko, No. 95-7939, 1997 WL 457667, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug.
12, 1997). Although pro se documents are liberally
construed by federal court, “[t]he ‘special
judicial solicitude' with which a district court should
view pro se complaints does not transform the court
into an advocate.” Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs. for Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
April 3, 2018, as part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge
notified the parties of their right to file
specific, written objections to the Report. (ECF No.
13 at 7.) Plaintiff's Objection did not state an error
with the Magistrate Judge's Report. (ECF No. 15.)
Plaintiff's Objection essentially restates arguments he
advanced in his initial Complaint and, therefore, “do
not direct the court to a specific error in the
[M]agistrate's proposed findings and
recommendation.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); (compare ECF No. 15,
with ECF No. 1.)
absence of specific, written objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report, the court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby, 718
F.2d at 199. Absent specific objections, the court must only
ensure that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept a recommendation. See Orpiano,
687 F.2d at 47 (“Courts have also held de novo review
to be unnecessary in analogous situations when a party makes
general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed
findings and recommendations.”). Furthermore, a failure
to file specific, written objections to the Report results in
a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment
of the court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The court concludes that the Report accurately
summarizes the law and correctly applies it. (ECF No. 15.)
Accordingly, construing Plaintiffs Objection liberally, the
court finds that he failed to advance any specific objections
to the Report, and the court adopts the Report herein because
there is no clear error. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) and incorporates it
herein. Accordingly, the court summarily
DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1)
without prejudice and without issuance and service of