Charpia v. Dorchester County Clerk of Court et al

Filing 71

ORDER RULING ON 60 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 34 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Dorchester County Clerk of Court, Joseph Blake Weathers, Dorchester County Sheriff Office, and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 7/11/2012. (sshe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Howard W. Charpia,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-3040-RMG
ORDER

)
)

Dorchester County Clerk of Court,
et aI,

)
)
)

Defendants.

)

---------------------)
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges Defendants violated his state and federal
constitutional rights as well as various state and federal laws. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim on January 16,2012. (Dkt. No. 34). Plaintiff filed a response. (Dkt. No. 51). The
Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant
Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 1, 2012. (Dkt. No. 60). The parties were advised that
any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing within 14 days of
service of the Report and Recommendation or face limited review by the District Court and
waiver of the right of appeal. See Dkt. No. 60 at 9; Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright
v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th CiT. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
On June 11,2012, Plaintiff moved for a sixty day extension of time to file objections to
the Report and Recommendation in order to "consult with legal [C]ounsel, to consult with the
ACLU and to contact the Attorney General on the case." (Dkt. No. 64). Plaintiff's original
deadline for filing objections was June 18,2012. The Court extended Plaintiff's time to file

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation until July 3, 2012. (Dkt. No.
65). In his request for an extension, Plaintiff stated that the "Rooker-Feldman Doctrine should
not and does not apply to this case, Plaintiff does not ask the Court to sit in review of a state
Court decision." (Dkt. No. 64 at 1).
The instructions provided to Plaintiff as part of the Report and Recommendation advised
Plaintiff that the parties "may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation
with the District Judge" and that the "[0 ]bjections must specifically identify the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections."
(Dkt. No. 60 at 9). Notwithstanding these instructions provided as a part of the Report and
Recommendation advising Plaintiff of the effect of failing to file timely objections and this
Court's grant of an extension to Plaintiff, Plaintiff failed to file any written objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the record in this
matter, the Report and Recommendation and the applicable law and hereby finds that the Report
and Recommendation accurately summarizes the applicable factual and legal issues in this
motion. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation as the order of this
Court. (Dkt. No. 60). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the complaint be dismissed
with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge

July~, 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

2