Skelton v. Eckstrom
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
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.
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?