United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 11. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02
(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings.
On September 10, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending this
matter be summarily dismissed with prejudice and without
issuance and service of process based on judicial immunity as
to Judges Childs and Gossett, and failure to state a claim as
to the Doe Defendants. ECF No. 17. 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 objections on
September 18, 2019. ECF No. 20.
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). The
court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence
of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(stating that “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.”) (citation omitted).
considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s
objections, the court agrees with the Report’s
recommendation the case be dismissed. As noted by the
Magistrate Judge, Judges Childs and Gossett are entitled to
absolute judicial immunity, and Plaintiff has made no
allegations against Jane or John Doe.
Plaintiff’s objections alter these conclusions. He
argues the Report is incorrect in stating Plaintiff’s
claims are about the summary judgment granted to the
defendants in three previous discrimination lawsuits against
various employers. ECF No. 20. Instead, he argues, Judges
Childs and Gossett “violated his Constitutional rights
by refusing to exercise jurisdiction over claims meeting all
of the prerequisites for filing a federal action.”
Id. at 4. In each of his three previous cases, he
claims, certain causes of action were dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction without discussing the merits. See Id.
at 4-8. He also contends the Magistrate Judge misconstrued
his claims in the instant case, and therefore the rulings in
the Report are “clearly erroneous.” Id.
at 9. He distinguishes the cases cited by the Report on their
facts based on the type of claims and judges (state v.
federal) at issue. Id. He argues his claims
must “proceed because they meet the criteria set forth
in Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
” and that his claims against the Doe defendants should
proceed because he “alleges a conspiracy to deprive
[him] of civil rights and needs discovery to properly
identify co-conspirators.” Id. at 11.
court finds these objections unavailing. Judges Childs and
Gossett have absolute judicial immunity, and no set of facts
would allow a plaintiff to sue them for judicial actions. No.
matter what Plaintiff objects to regarding the adjudication
of his previous employment cases, the actions of Judges
Childs and Gossett regarding those cases are entitled to
absolute judicial immunity. Immunity applies to state and
federal judges regardless of the type of claim made in the
underlying case. Applying this law to the facts as alleged by
Plaintiff, it is clear he cannot bring suit against these
Defendants as he challenges their judicial actions in
connection with his previous civil cases. This deficiency
cannot be remedied through an amended pleading, as
Plaintiff’s complaints are all related to the
adjudication of his previous cases. Therefore, the claims
alleged against Judges Childs and Gossett are dismissed with
court further agrees with the Report regarding the Doe
Defendants. Although Plaintiff requests in his objections to
proceed to discovery to “properly identify
co-conspirators, ” Defendant Judges Childs and Gossett
are dismissed and there is no case to proceed as Plaintiff
alleged no facts against any additional defendants.
the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order.
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 21) is denied. This matter
is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
 Plaintiff also filed a Motion for
Three-Judge Panel. ECF No. 21. This motion is denied. The
procedures in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b) concern actions by
the Attorney General, or, after March 24, 1974, the EEOC who
can request the pattern or practice Complaint be heard by a
three-judge panel. Plaintiff is not entitled to a three-judge
panel to adjudicate his private claims for ...