United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Randy Williams (Williams), proceeding pro se, filed this
action seeking damages against Defendants South Carolina
Workers' Compensation Commission (SCWCC), T. Scott Beck,
Gene McCaskill, and Aisha Taylor (collectively, Defendants)
for state tort claims. The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Williams's
complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Report was made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which a
specific objection is made, and the Court 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). The Court need not conduct a de novo
review, however, “when a party makes general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the [Magistrate Judge's] proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 15, 2019. Williams
filed his first set of Objections to the Report (Objections)
on May 23, 2019. Williams filed supplements to his Objections
twenty times between May 28, 2019, and December 17, 2019
(Supplements). The Court has reviewed the objections but
holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter
Magistrate Judge's recommendation focused exclusively on
the lack of a federal cause of action alleged in the
complaint, undermining Williams's assertion of federal
question jurisdiction. Most of Williams's objections
restate the substance of his allegations against Defendants,
without addressing the jurisdictional issues identified by
the Magistrate Judge. Some of these objections are directed
at arguments not appearing in the Report at all. These
allegations are quintessential “general objections,
” thus, fail to require de novo review. Id.
The Court finds no clear error on the face of the record.
the Objections and Supplements, Williams claims Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, the Judicial Misconduct and
Disabilities Act of 1980, the False Claims Act, the Fourth
Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 are all
applicable to his case. Within the Supplements, Williams also
makes vague allegations of violations of his constitutional
and civil rights. The complaint, however, fails to identify
any of these federal statues as the basis for the suit,
claiming violations of state medical malpractice laws, with
references to a failure by the SCWCC to properly enforce
South Carolina's worker compensation laws. Complaint at
13; Twelth Set of Supporting Documents to Complaint at 1.
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, the complaint states only
state-law claims; no federal causes of actions are presented.
Williams has made no effort to amend his complaint to conform
with the potential federal causes of action identified in his
Objections and Supplements. The face of Williams's
complaint precludes this Court from exercising federal
question jurisdiction over the action and the Court will
therefore overrule Williams's objections.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules
Williams's objections, adopts the Report, and
incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the
Court Williams's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE and without issuance or service of process
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, because of
the dismissal, Williams's motion for spoliation of
evidences is DEEMED MOOT.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order
within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3