Clark v. Aiken Department of Public Safety et al

Filing 37

ORDER adopting the 32 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 9/26/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Blake Marcell Clark,

C/A No. 1:18-325-JFA-PGA

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
J. Waltower, D. Drasher, T. Patten, B.
Bethman,
Defendants.

Blake Marcell Clark (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented state pretrial detainee proceeding in
forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. In his Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to sue four officers of the Aiken Department of Public Safety. (ECF No.
20). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case
was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
Because the Amended Complaint was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, this
Court is charged with screening Plaintiff’s lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the
complaint if, after being liberally construed, it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss the action without prejudice

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this
Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation
1

1

and without issuance and service of process because Plaintiff has failed to fully comply with three
orders issued by the Magistrate Judge and has failed to provide the necessary information and
paperwork to accomplish review and possible service of process under 28 U.S.C § 1915 and
§ 1915A. (ECF No. 32). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on
this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
By order dated March 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff the opportunity to
file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge that would
warrant summary dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. (ECF
No. 10). In a simultaneously issued order by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff was provided an
opportunity to submit the documents necessary to bring the case into proper form for evaluation
and possible service of process. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the
necessary information within a specific time period would subject the case to dismissal. Plaintiff
did not respond to either order and, on April 6, 2018, the Magistrate Judge recommended summary
dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) for
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and alternatively, for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with an order of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 15).
On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the April 6 Report and Recommendation
indicating he needed an extension of time to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s March 8 Order.
(ECF No. 19). Plaintiff also filed an Amended Complaint and the documents required for service
of process. (ECF Nos. 20 & 22). This Court then vacated the Report and Recommendation and
referred this action to the Magistrate Judge because Plaintiff’s filings indicated he wished to

to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

proceed with this action. (ECF No. 25).
Consequently, on July 30, 2018, the Magistrate Judge again issued an order warning
Plaintiff that his Amended Complaint was subject to summary dismissal for the same reasons
stated in the Magistrate Judge’s March 8 Order, and also that Plaintiff still had not fully complied
with the Magistrate Judge’s directive to file the documents necessary for the issuance and service
of process. (ECF No. 28). The Magistrate Judge’s July 30 Order again warned Plaintiff that his
failure to comply with the order would subject this matter to dismissal. The deadline given to
Plaintiff to respond to the order lapsed on August 17, 2018, and Plaintiff has still not responded.
As a result, in its Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this Court should dismiss the action
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on August 28, 2018. (ECF No. 32). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by
September 11, 2018. Id. However, Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 32). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 26, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3