Boyd v. KLLM Transport Services Inc et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 10 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/12/2011. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Don Boyd,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
KLLM Transport Services Inc.; Wells Marble )
& Hurst, PLLC; Roy H. Liddell; Kevin A.
)
Rogers; Southeastern Training Centers, Inc.;
)
Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, PA; J. Wyatt
)
Hazard; Carolyn Curry Satcher; J.T. Robinson; )
David L. Redd; W. Stan Sullivan; Doe Clerk
)
One; Doe Clerk Two; Doe Clerk Three; The
)
United States of America (United States
)
District Court for the Western District of
)
Louisiana); The United States of America
)
(United States District Court of Mississippi);
)
The United States of America (United States
)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit),
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

C/A No.: 3:10-3208-JFA-PJG

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Don Boyd, appears to bring this action pursuant to this court’s
diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff asserts Judges and clerks operate “kangaroo courts” in
order to insulate “deep pockets.” He also claims that various judicial actors conspired to
defeat the plaintiff in cases before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, and the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff is requesting $32,000,000 in monetary damages for
violations of his constitutional rights.
1

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The
Report recommends that the action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to submit objections to the Report, which was
filed on February 8, 2011. Plaintiff filed late objections on March 4, 2011 (ECF No. 12).
I.

Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to
which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II.

Discussion
In his objections, the plaintiff claims he was without a working printer, without a car,

and the University of South Carolina law library was operating under limited holiday hours.

2

Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge knew he would be unable to
timely file his objections. However, the plaintiff did not request an extension of time to file
them. He also claims that the Report should be rejected and he should be given an extension
for ambiguous service. However, even with the 3-day extension for mailed service under
Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff’s objections are untimely.
Even though they were not timely filed, the court will address the objections on their merits.
Although the petitioner, as a pro se litigant, is entitled to some deference by the
judicial system (see, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)), he nonetheless is required
to adhere to the court’s orders regarding the timely filing of documents, and he must respect
this court’s orders so that fairness to all litigants and an effective judicial administration is
maintained. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir.1989). The instructions for
filing objections were clearly printed on the last page of the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate correctly concludes that this court cannot provide the plaintiff with the
relief he is seeking. The plaintiff is asking this court to sit as an appellate court over
decisions made by other district courts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff’s
proper course of action would be to appeal the decisions of those courts instead of bringing
a new lawsuit in South Carolina.
The Magistrate also correctly points out the reasons why the plaintiff cannot seek
relief against these particular defendants. The unnamed federal district judges the plaintiff
complains of are absolutely immune to suit. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991). The

3

unnamed defendants Doe Clerk One, Doe Clerk Two, and Doe Clerk Three are protected by
quasi-judicial immunity, which protects court personnel from the types of claims alleged by
the plaintiff. The attorneys and law firms named in the suit are not amenable to suit because
attorneys do not act under color of state law, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a civil
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Deas v. Potts, 547 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1976).
Finally, the plaintiff has failed to allege any cause of action against KLLM Transport
Services, Inc., Southeastern Training Centers, Inc., J.T. Robinson, David L. Redd, and W.
Stan Sullivan, nor has the plaintiff shown that these parties’ actions constitute state action.
The plaintiff objects to the Magistrate’s summary of his complaint because the
“Magistrate mischaracterizes or under-characterizes Complaint allegations.” (ECF No. 12).
The plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate, and not the plaintiff, stated that the plaintiff
requested appellate review. The complaint is difficult to follow, but it clearly states that he
requests “leave to resume or prosecute original claims at [his] option.” This court does not
have such appellate jurisdiction. The remainder of the plaintiff’s objections are conclusory
and need not be addressed.
III.

Conclusion
After carefully reviewing the applicable law, the record in this case, and the Report

and Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The court,
therefore, adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in full and incorporates this

4

Report by specific reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 12, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

5