Wilson v. Jacobs et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 13 ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against Defendant Matt Ellis are DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/18/2014. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISCTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Thomas C. Wilson,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. Jacobs, M.D.;
Wienglass, M.D.;
Matt Ellis, Investigator, SC Attorney
General Office,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0:14-4006-TMC-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff, Thomas C. Wilson, proceeding pro se, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against Defendants, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this case was referred to a magistrate judge for
all pre-trial proceedings. This case is now before the court on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Matt Ellis
be dismissed from this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF
No. 13). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 19). Accordingly, this matter is now
ripe for review.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In making that determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Then, the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge. See id.

As set forth above, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report.

(ECF No. 19).

However, Plaintiff’s objections fail to address any specific, dispositive portion of the Report.1
Plaintiff states that he seeks injunctive relief and a forum to raise his claims against Ellis. (ECF
No. 19 at 2). He explicitly says that “[i]t makes no sense to sue . . . for money damages in that
Ellis more likely than not i[s] judgment proof,” (ECF No. 19 at 2), and that he seeks to “rebuff
[Ellis’s] baseless accusations,” and that he wants “redress to the charges.” (ECF No. 1 at 17).
As the magistrate judge explained, because Plaintiff seeks to have this court enjoin a state
criminal process,—in which he could raise his constitutional arguments—the principles of
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), are applicable, and the court should abstain.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 13) and
incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Matt
Ellis are DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
December 18, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1
In his objections, Plaintiff references that he will suffer irreparable harm because of the doctors’ alleged failure to
follow heart transplant protocol, and the alleged failure of medical personnel to provide care. (ECF No. 19 at 2).
The Report only addressed the claims against Ellis, and in particular, that Younger abstention should lead to the
dismissal of Ellis because the court should abstain from enjoining state criminal proceedings. (ECF No. 13).