Patterson v. Goldsmith et al

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 9 Report and Recommendations and dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 10/17/2011. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Patricia T. Patterson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Brooks P. Goldsmith and AutoZone,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 0:11-475-MBS

ORDER AND OPINION

On February 28, 2011, Patricia T. Patterson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed an action in this Court against the Honorable Brooks P. Goldsmith, a South
Carolina Circuit Court judge; and AutoZone, Plaintiff’s former employer. See ECF No. 9 at 2-3.
Plaintiff states causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, alleging a
conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff seeks damages in the
amount of $8.25 million. Id. at 19-20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant
for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A.
On March 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
he found that “Plaintiff’s Complaint contains absolutely no allegation of any kind, much less of
wrongdoing, against Defendant AutoZone, concerning its alleged knowledge of, or involvement
in acts taken in furtherance of, the alleged conspiracy.”1 Id. at 6. Because “there is nothing from
1

The Magistrate Judge suspected, based on inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s filings in
this case and Plaintiff’s actions in prior cases in this district, that Plaintiff did not intend
to name AutoZone as a defendant in this present case. ECF No. 9 at 3 n.2. The
1

which [the] Court can liberally construe any type of plausible cause of action against [AutoZone]
arising from the Complaint,” the Magistrate Judge recommended that the action against
AutoZone be summarily dismissed. Id. at 6-7. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found that
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Goldsmith arise from acts taken in his judicial capacity on
the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court. Id. at 7-8. Because “a judge is absolutely immune from a claim
for damages arising out of his judicial actions,” Chu v. Griffith, 771 F.2d 79, 81 (4th Cir. 1985),
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the action against Defendant Goldsmith be summarily
dismissed. Id. at 7-9. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation on March 16, 2011. ECF No. 11.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is
obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report to which
objections have been filed. Id.
DISCUSSION
In Plaintiff’s objections, she argues that “[t]his claim was not pursued against AutoZone”
and that “this Complaint was filed . . . only against Brooks P. Goldsmith.” ECF No. 11 at 1-2.
Because Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that no claims were stated
against AutoZone, and because Plaintiff agrees that AutoZone was named as a defendant in

Magistrate Judge nonetheless considered any claims Plaintiff may have asserted against
AutoZone.
2

error, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s action
against Defendant AutoZone.
Plaintiff argues that “Defendant [Goldsmith] is not immune from damages under” 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. ECF No. 11 at 24. However, Plaintiff cites no authority in
support of this proposition. As the Magistrate Judge noted, it is a matter of settled law that a
judge is immune from a suit for damages based on actions taken in his official capacity.
Additionally, absolute immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to
liability.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). For this reason, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Goldsmith.
CONCLUSION
After a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation are without merit.
Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Marchant’s Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance or
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 17, 2011

3