Carter v. Ervin et al
ORDER accepting the 85 170 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants Rayford Ervin and Frank Sadler, dismissing the action without prejudice as to Defendant Gary Love, and denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Recusal, 99 Motion for Hearing, and 123 Motion to Reinstate. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 3/1/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Dell Layfette Carter,
Case No. 0:16-cv-00742-TLW
Rayford Ervin, Frank Sadler, and Gary Love,
Plaintiff Dell Layfette Carter, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging a violation of his
civil rights, which the Court construes as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The matter
now comes before the Court for review of two Report and Recommendations (R&Rs) filed on
May 20 and September 13, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Gossett, to whom this case was assigned.
ECF Nos. 85 & 170. In the first R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint
should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process as to
Defendants Rayford Ervin and Frank Sadler. ECF No. 85. In the second R&R, the magistrate
judge recommends that Defendant Gary Love, the last remaining Defendant, should be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ECF No. 170. Plaintiff filed
objections to the respective R&Rs on May 27 and September 19, 2016. ECF Nos. 89 & 178. This
matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the R&Rs
and the objections. After careful review of the R&Rs and the objections, for the reasons stated by
the magistrate judge, both R&Rs are ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of
process as to Defendants Rayford Ervin and Frank Sadler and DISMISSED without prejudice as
to Defendant Gary Love.
Additionally, Plaintiff filed multiple documents that purport to be motions for recusal, for
a hearing, and to reinstate Defendants Rayford Ervin and Frank Sadler. ECF Nos. 12, 99, & 123.
Having carefully considered these filings, these motions are DENIED as being without sufficient
legal merit. See United States v. Patel, 879 F.2d 292, 295 (7th Cir. 1989) (“When issues patently
lack merit, the reviewing court is not obliged to devote scarce judicial resources to a written
discussion of them.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
March 1, 2017
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?