Graham v. Chapman et al

Filing 15

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Plaintiff's complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/8/2012.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Joshua Markell Graham,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
J.W. Chapman; B. Ray Woodard;
)
State of South Carolina,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:12-1438-MGL

Opinion and Order

Plaintiff Joshua Markell Graham is a pretrial detainee housed at the Calhoun County
Detention Center. Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on May 31, 2012, alleging that
Defendants have violated his constitutional rights in relation to his pending state criminal case.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C ., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. The Magistrate
Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. On July 20, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation in which he noted that Defendant State of South Carolina is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity. The Magistrate Judge further noted that with respect to the natural named
defendants, J.W. Chapman and B. Ray Woodard, there are no allegations in the complaint
identifying the particular conduct of the named defendants that is alleged to have harmed Plaintiff.
(ECF No. 12 at 3.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that although Plaintiff asks this Court to
intervene in his state criminal action, the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, held that a federal

court should not interfere with state criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and
extraordinary of circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff
filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation and incorporates the Report and Recommendation herein. Plaintiff's complaint is
summarily dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
August 8, 2012