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.

Legette v. Wilson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

November 12, 2019

Roger Syndell Legette, a/k/a Roger Syntell Legette, Plaintiff,
v.
Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General, Horry County, Horry County Police Department, Matthew Shane Twigg, and Ralph J. Wilson, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Roger Syndell Legette, (“Plaintiff”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] prepared two thorough Reports and Recommendations. (ECF No. 9; 23).

         After filing his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 3). On July 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a Report and Recommendation (“first Report”) recommending Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction be dismissed. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the first Report on July 12, 2019, and thus, the Magistrate Judge's first Report (ECF No. 9) is ripe for review.

         On August 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge prepared a second Report and Recommendation (“second Report”) which recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the second Report on August 26, 2019, and thus, the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 23) is ripe for review.

         Additionally, on September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Writ of Coram Non-Judice (ECF No. 27). On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff's Motions are also ripe for review. (ECF No. 27; 28).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

         III. DISCUSSION

         a. Magistrate Judge's First Report (ECF No. 9)

         On the same day Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction with respect to the claims he brought in his Complaint. (ECF No. 3). As the first Report sets out, Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction in his Motion or Objections. (ECF No. 3; 9). The Magistrate Judge argues that Plaintiff has not provided anything to substantiate his allegations in his Complaint or current Motion. (ECF No. 1; 3). However, in his Objections, Plaintiff states that this assertion is not supported by the record because he submitted a sworn affidavit establishing the basis of his claim. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff attached the sworn affidavit to his Objections and it is eleven factual assertions that provide no substantive support for his claims. (ECF No. 12-1). While Plaintiff argues that he has established “beyond all measures of doubt” that he has met the requisite standard for a TRO or Preliminary Injunction, the Court is not persuaded by his Objections. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff merely states that he has met each element required for the Court to grant his Motion but he does not explain how. Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's first Report (ECF No. 9) and denies Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 3).

         b. Magistrate Judge's Second Report (ECF No. 23)

         The Magistrate Judge's second Report recommends dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and declining to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff's Complaint stems from his murder conviction in Horry County. Plaintiff asserts that he is innocent and has been wrongfully imprisoned for 23 years. (ECF No. 1). In his Complaint, he alleges that Defendants falsified evidence and testimony to wrongfully convict him. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff contends that their acts violated his due process rights and Fourth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1). However, the second Report concludes that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for the following reasons. (ECF No. 23).

         i. Plaintiff's Claims are ...


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.