Washington v. South State Bank et al
Filing
16
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Having adopted the 9 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges as the order of the Court, this case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/29/2018. (sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jestine Delores Washington,
Plaintiff,
v.
South State Bank; Fed. Court; AT&T;
Comcast; Direct TV; and Dobson &
Pest Control D-Z,
Defendants.
Case No.: 2: 17-cv-3464
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 9) recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance of service of process. For the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts the R.
& R. as the order of the Court.
I.
Background and Relevant Facts
Plaintiff, Jestine Delores Washington, has filed a complaint alleging a violation of her
federal constitutional rights and statutory rights. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) In the statement of the claim
portion of the complaint, Plaintiff states:
My claim as brief as possible is the plaintiff is not providing equal service .. .
based on computer info provided to companies that fail once transmitted. (standup computer- transposing to a desk top with power drive computer.) ie 60 min
interview on talking walking cpt.
Id. at 5. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages . Id.
II.
Legal Standards
a. Pro Se Pleadings
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the
development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v.
-1-
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal
claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none
exists. See Weller v. Dep 't of Social Services, 901F.2d387 (4th Cir. 1990).
b. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270- 71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l).
III.
Discussion
The Magistrate Judge explained in the R. & R. that Plaintiffs complaint lacks sufficient
factual allegations to state any plausible claims against Defendants because her citations to
federal statutory and constitutional provisions are conclusory and her factual allegations are
nonsensical. (Dkt. No. 9 at 3-4.)
No party has filed objections to the R. & R., and the deadline to file objections has
1
passed. In the absence of any specific objections, "a district court need not conduct a de nova
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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). This Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts of this case.
1
Plaintiff has submitted two additional filings that are nonsensical and cannot be read as objections to the
R. & R. One of the filings appears to be a request to update her address. (Dkt. Nos. 12 and 13.)
-2-
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 9) as the order of the
Court. This case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
ergel
United States District Court Judge
1 ,
January ),
2018
Charleston, South Carolina
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?