McCoy v. Probate Judge Carolyn W Rogers
Filing
12
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, dismissing action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 5/11/2016. (mdea )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Bruce McCoy,
)
) C/A No. 0:16-486-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
Probate Judge Carolyn W. Rogers;
)
York County, S.C.; Lancaster County,
)
S.C.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Robert Bruce McCoy, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint
on February 18, 2016, alleging that he was treated unfairly with respect to the distribution of his
mother’s estate. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Probate Judge Carolyn W. Rogers denied him a
fair and impartial trial, and that Defendants York County, South Carolina, and Lancaster County,
South Carolina, are responsible for Defendant Rogers’ actions. Plaintiff seeks a new trial; the return
of land he was required to sell to pay for attorney’s fees, and the return of monies owed to him by
the estate and family members.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and construed Plaintiff’s complaint as raising
a claim that he was denied due process, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Magistrate Judge determined that (1) Defendant Rogers is entitled to absolute immunity; (2)
Defendants York County and Lancaster County are not liable under respondeat superior principles
for Defendant Rogers’ allegedly unconstitutional conduct; and (3) the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine
bars the court from reviewing the judgment rendered by the state probate court. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
Plaintiff filed no objection to the Report and
Recommendation.
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 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. The within action is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
May 11, 2016
1
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
2
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?