Moore v. Harrington et al

Filing 15

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/10/2014.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Karen Moore,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Judge Kristi Lea Harrington; Caroline
Leonard; Bonnie L. Campbell, J.C.
Nicholson, Jr.; and Charleston County,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.2: 13-cv-3033-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 13), recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance of service. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the
R & R in full. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance
of service.
Back~round

Plaintiff brought this Section 1983 action against two South Carolina state court judges,
two employees of the Charleston County Clerk of Court's office, and Charleston County. (Dkt.
No.1.) Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Defendants have violated her "First
Amendment right to bring a grievance to the government." (Id. at 1.) The Magistrate Judge
recommended that this action be summarily dismissed because Defendants Nicholson and
Harrington are entitled absolute judicial immunity, Defendants Leonard and Campbell are
entitled to quasi judicial immunity. and Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against
Charleston County. (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's
R&R.

Discussion
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, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.c. § 636(b)(I). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Diamond v. Colonial Lifo & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, where no objection is made, as is
the case here, this Court "must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Id (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory
committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need
not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See

Cambyv. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Complaint and the R & R and concludes that the
Magistrate Judge correctly applied the relevant law to the operative facts in this matter.
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS in full the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt.
No. 13) as the order of this Court. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
and without issuance of service.

rufE&e

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Januar/~,2014
Charleston, South Carolina
2