United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff Randall Loyis Simpson, a pretrial detainee
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
October 31, 2019, alleging that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) On November 7, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge issued an Order (ECF No. 7) directing the
Clerk not to authorize service of process. On the same day,
the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) (ECF No. 9), recommending that the
court dismiss Plaintiff's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, without prejudice.
to the Report were due by November 21, 2019, with an
additional three (3) days if served by mail or otherwise
allowed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 or Fed R. Crim. P. 45.
(See ECF No. 9 at 10.) Plaintiff filed no objections
to the Report by November 21, 2019. In the absence of timely
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court
is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, the court 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, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
court accepts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and
dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) without
prejudice and without issuance or service of process.
The court incorporates pertinent facts from the Report
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) for
the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court. See Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. Id. at 270-71. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. Id. As such, the court is charged with
making de novo determinations of those portions of
the Report to which specific objections are made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must dismiss a case filed
in forma pauperis if at any time it determines that
the action (1) “is frivolous or malicious, ” (2)
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Before docketing, if
feasible, the court should review a civil complaint “in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A
“prisoner” is “any person incarcerated or
detained in any facility who is accused of . . . violations
of criminal law.” See Id. § 1915A(c). As
Plaintiff is incarcerated and accused of violations of
criminal law in the Florence County Court of General
Sessions, he is a prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(See ECF No. 9.) Further, Plaintiff “seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity.”
he is a pro se litigant, Plaintiff's pleadings
are construed liberally by the court and held to a less
stringent standard than attorneys' formal pleadings.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). This, however, “does not transform the court
into an advocate” for Plaintiff; the court is not
required to recognize Plaintiff's claims if there is
clearly no factual basis supporting them. See Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir.
filed his Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF
No. 1.) Section 1983 “'is not itself a source of
substantive rights,' but merely provides ‘a method
for vindicating federal rights elsewhere
conferred.'” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S.
266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 442 U.S.
137, 144, n.3 (1979)). “Section 1983 . . . creates a
private right of action to vindicate violations of
‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws' of the United States.”
Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012). To show
a violation of § 1983, Plaintiff must show “(1)
that [the state actors] ‘deprived [him] of a right
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States'; and (2) that they ‘deprived [him] of this
constitutional right under color of [State law].'”
See Mentavlos v. Anderson, 249 F.3d 301, 310 (4th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970).
requests injunctive relief regarding his pending criminal
charges in state court. (See generally ECF No. 1.)
While the district court has the power to enjoin state
officers in state criminal proceedings, such injunctive
relief against a state officer should be exercised in only
“extraordinary circumstances, where the danger of
irreparable loss is both great and immediate.”
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). This
court must not restrain state criminal prosecution unless the
moving party has no “adequate remedy at law” and
irreparable damage will result from the denial of injunctive
relief. Id. at 43-44. Abstention from injunction,
under Younger, is appropriate when the following
requirements have been met: (1) “there are ongoing
state judicial proceedings”; (2) “the proceedings
implicate important state interests”; and (3)
“there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal
claims in the state proceedings.” See Martin
Marietta Corp. v. Md. Comm'n on Human Relations, 38
F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994).
are ongoing state criminal proceedings at issue here
involving Plaintiff. These proceedings implicate important
state interests, as “the states' interest in
administering their criminal justice systems free from
federal interference is one of the most powerful of the
considerations that should influence a court considering
equitable types of relief.” See Kelly v.
Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). Plaintiff may address
his claims against the solicitor and public defender through
his pending criminal proceedings. Furthermore, no
“extraordinary circumstances” have been shown
that would necessitate interference in the state court
proceedings. Therefore, the court denies Plaintiff's
request for an injunction to stay his pending state criminal
to State a ...