Buckner v. Hamilton

Filing 36

ORDER accepting the 12 Report and Recommendation, overruling objections, denying as moot the remaining outstanding 19 , 21 , 27 , 28 , 33 and 34 motions and dismissing the 1 complaint with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L. Wooten on 5/9/2022. (lbak)

0:21-cv-03874-TLW

Date Filed 05/09/22

Entry Number 36

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bruce Allen Buckner,

Case No. 0:21-cv-03874-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
York County Clerk of Court David
Hamilton,

Order

DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff Bruce Allen Buckner, proceeding pro se, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights by York County Clerk of Court David Hamilton (“Defendant”).
ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was
assigned. ECF No. 12.
In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Complaint be
dismissed on grounds that Defendant is protected by quasi-judicial immunity. The
magistrate judge had previously issued an order outlining deficiencies in the
complaint and giving Plaintiff opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 8, which reiterated his original allegations
against Defendant, at which point the magistrate judge issued the Report. Plaintiff
then filed objections, but again failed to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 16. This
matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the Report, 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

0:21-cv-03874-TLW

Date Filed 05/09/22

Entry Number 36

Page 2 of 2

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 omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo,
the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and the objections,
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report is ACCEPTED. His
objections are OVERRULED. His Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten

Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
May 9, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

1

The remaining outstanding motions, ECF Nos. 19, 21, 27, 28, 33, and 34 are hereby denied as moot.