United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
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 prepared two thorough Reports and
Recommendations. (ECF No. 9; 23).
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
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.
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).
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).
Magistrate Judge's First Report (ECF No. 9)
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).
Magistrate Judge's Second Report (ECF No. 23)
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
Plaintiff's Claims are ...