Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knox v. Cauthen

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

July 22, 2019

Tito Knox, Plaintiff,
v.
Maxwell B. Cauthen; Sergio Sanchez, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          PAIGE J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The plaintiff, Tito Knox, proceeding pro se, brings this action 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.). By order dated May 28, 2019, the court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the court that would warrant summary dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed a response to the order. (ECF No. 12.) Having reviewed Plaintiff's response and the record in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes this matter should be summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance of service of process.

         A summary of Plaintiff's allegations in the original complaint can be found in the court's May 28 order. In accordance with the court's duty to liberally construe pro se pleadings, the court construed the Complaint as seeking damages for violation of Plaintiff's civil rights by a federal prosecutor and a medical doctor. Because at least one of the named defendants is a federal officer, the court construed this action as seeking relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unkown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, the court found that the Complaint lacked sufficient factual detail to plausibly allege a recognizable constitutional violation. The court also found that Defendant Maxwell B. Cauthen was immune from suit as a prosecutor.

         In his response to the court's May 28 order, Plaintiff indicates that he was criminally charged in this court but found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a psychiatric facility pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243 in 2007.[1] (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff also indicates that he was conditionally released from that order of commitment in 2008. (ECF No. 12-1 at 5.) Plaintiff now appears to argue that he should be relieved of the conditions in that order because he is now in remission from the disorder that made those conditions necessary. (ECF No. 12 at 1.)

         To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from the court's order conditionally releasing him from the psychiatric facility, Plaintiff must separately seek such relief in that matter. To the extent Plaintiff's response to the court's May 28 order was an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint in this case, Plaintiff fails to provide any new allegations or claims that would show he is plausibly entitled to relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of factual support). Thus, Plaintiff still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         Accordingly, the court recommends that the Complaint be summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. See Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 Fed.Appx. 280, 281 (4th Cir. 2018) (in a case where the district court had already afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, directing the district court on remand to “in its discretion, either afford [the plaintiff] another opportunity to file an amended complaint or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order”) (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015))

         Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

         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 recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

         Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

         Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

         Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

---------

Notes:

[1] United States v. Knox, Cr. No. 6:06-269-HMH.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.