Rice v. Fairfield County Sheriff's Department
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 14 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 04/21/2011. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department,
C/A No.: 0:11-310-JFA-PJG
The pro se plaintiff, David Rice, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
contends that deputies of the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department unlawfully searched his
home when executing a claim and delivery order to repossess furniture purchased by the
plaintiff’s daughter, who resides at a different address than the plaintiff.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that the court should dismiss this action because the
named defendant is immune from suit and the complaint is time-barred. The Report sets forth
in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such
without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation and the plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report. Thus, it appears this
matter is ripe for resolution.
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report to which 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 to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge properly suggests that the sole defendant, Fairfield County
Sheriff’s Department, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and thus this court is without jurisdiction to hear this case.
Magistrate Judge also opines that the statute of limitations period applicable to this § 1983
action is three years under South Carolina law. The actions upon which plaintiff complains
took place in August 2007, thus the statute of limitations period would have expired in August
2010. The plaintiff did not file his complaint in this action until February 7, 2011, as amended
on March 16, 2011. Furthermore, the plaintiff provides no explanation of why his complaint
should be considered timely.
In his objections to the Report, the plaintiff provides a general objection to immunity
from a law suit stating that “the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
ratification was rejected by the Supreme Court and never signed by the President.” He also
objects to South Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. These objections are overruled.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation, and the plaintiff’s objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated
herein by reference and this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 21, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?