James v. Wilson et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/7/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Anthony James, #310987,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Scarlet Wilson and Alan Wilson,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:15-1716-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a
magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff was advised of his
right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 8 at 7). Plaintiff has filed objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 11).
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 the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Plaintiff claims that his case is not subject to summary dismissal because his case is
brought pursuant to the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution. (ECF No. 11). As the magistrate judge properly addressed, Defendants are entitled
to absolute immunity for their roles in representing the State in Plaintiff’s state post-conviction
relief case. See Rice v. Nat'l Sec. Council, 244 F. Supp. 2d 594, 602 (D.S.C. 2001); see also
Crane v. Harvin, No. C/A 3:10-2752, 2010 WL 5128356, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2010) (stating
that absolute immunity includes protection against requests for injunctive relief). Thus, the court
finds that, notwithstanding the assertion of constitutional violations in Plaintiff’s objections, this
case is subject to summary dismissal.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 8) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
July 7, 2015
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.