Skelton v. Eckstrom

Filing 10

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 9/16/10.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA J a m e s B. Skelton, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Daniel R. Eckstrom, Lexington County ) P r o b a t e Court, ) ) D e fe n d a n t . ) ____________________________________)

C/A No. 3:10-1888-MBS

ORDER

P l a i n t i ff James B. Skelton, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed a complaint on July 2 0 , 2010 against Defendant Probate Judge Daniel R. Eckstrom. Plaintiff alleges that his civil and c o n s titu t io n a l rights have been violated by a court system "that automatically puts you as in c o m p e t e n t on paper without hearing the burden of proof." Plaintiff alleges Defendant "violates s ta te and federal laws by holding a competent person under probate, avoiding granting me a petition fo r review and has committed professional malpractice and a mischarage [sic] of justice." C o m p la in t, 3, ECF No. 1. 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 Robert S. Carr for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge re v i e w e d the complaint pursuant to various precedents allowing initial screening of pro se filings. O n July 29, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he d e t e r m i n e d that (1) Defendant Eckstrom is entitled to judicial immunity; and (2) the court is p r e c lu d e d by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from reviewing findings and rulings made by state courts. A c co rd in gly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court summarily dismiss the case without p re ju d ic e and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and R e co m m e n d atio n .

T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge 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 r e v i e w , but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in o rd e r to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and adopts the Report and Recommendation. P la in tiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina S e p te m b e r 16, 2010.

N O T I C E OF RIGHT TO APPEAL P l a i n tif f is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2