United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge
matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff
Ryan Patrick Nicholson's objection to the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, who recommends summarily
dismissing one defendant from this action. See ECF
Nos. 17 & 19.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
proceeding pro se,  filed this action alleging his
constitutional rights were violated in connection with a
September 7, 2019 traffic stop near Pageland, South Carolina.
See ECF No. 1. He names five defendants: (1) a state
trooper who allegedly “abducted” him (Defendant
R.C. Rhyne), (2) the Pageland Police Department, (3) the
Chesterfield County Sheriff's Department, (4) the South
Carolina Highway Patrol, and (5) the State of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge has entered an R & R recommending
that the Court summarily dismiss the State of South Carolina
because the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against this
defendant. See ECF No. 17. Plaintiff has filed an
objection to the R & R. See ECF No. 19.
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Eleventh
Amendment bars Plaintiff's suit against the State of
South Carolina. See Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v.
Hood, 541 U.S. 440, 446 (2004) (“[A]n unconsenting
State . . . is immune from suits by its own
citizens.”); Pense v. Maryland Dep't of Pub.
Safety & Corr. Servs., 926 F.3d 97, 100 (4th Cir.
2019) (recognizing “an unconsenting State is immune
from suits brought in federal courts by her own
citizens”); see also S.C. Code Ann. §
15-78-20(e) (expressly reserving South Carolina's
Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court).
Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's
objection and dismiss the State of South Carolina from this
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objection, ADOPTS the R
& R [ECF No. 17], and DISMISSES
Defendant State of South Carolina without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge
authorized service of process on the four ...