Smith v. Holder et al

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 13 Report and Recommendations, denying 17 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Adrian Marion Smith, denying 18 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Adrian Marion Smith, denying as moot 19 Motion for Writ of Mandamus filed by Adrian Marion Smith, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 1/26/2012. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Adrian Marion Smith,

)
) C/A No. 3:11-0748-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
Eric Holder, Attorney General of the
)
United States of America; State of Georgia )
Circuit Judge Annis; State of South
)
Carolina SCDC Director Bill Byars,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
At the time of filing the complaint, Plaintiff Adrian Marion Smith was an inmate in custody
of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). On March 30, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint contending that Defendants have violated his civil rights. Specifically,
Plaintiff contends that (1) Defendant Attorney General Eric Holder erred in not advising President
Barak Obama to grant Plaintiff a pardon; (2) Defendant Judge Annis placed an unlawful detainer
against Plaintiff; and (3) Defendant Director Byars is detaining him unlawfully. Plaintiff further
appears to allege that Defendants have conspired to deprive him of his civil rights. Plaintiff seeks
expungement of his criminal record, dismissal of charges pending against him in Georgia, and release
from SCDC. Plaintiff does not appear to seek monetary damages.
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 Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996. On May 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation in which he noted that (1) Plaintiff has not pleaded any factual allegations to
support a conspiracy among Defendants; (2) Defendant Annis, as a Georgia Circuit Judge, is entitled

to absolute immunity from claims arising out of his judicial actions unless he acts in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction; (3) the President lacks clemency power over Plaintiff’s state law crimes,
and thus Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Holder fail to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; and (4) Plaintiff’s remedy with respect to the detainer lodged against him is to file a petition
in Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2011.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
As an initial matter, it appears that Plaintiff no longer is housed at SCDC. Therefore, any
claims seeking injunctive relief are moot. See, e.g., Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4 th Cir.
2009). As to Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff restates the allegations of his complaint, recites portions
of the Report and Recommendation verbatim, sets forth case law, and contends that the Magistrate
Judge committed legal errors. The district court need not conduct a de novo review when a party
makes only general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 4748 (4th Cir. 1982). Nevertheless, the court has thoroughly examined the record. Plaintiffs objections
are without merit.
The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of

2

process. Plaintiffs motions of default judgment as to all Defendants (ECF No. 17, 18) are denied.
Defendants have not been served with the complaint; therefore, they are not in default. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (a defendant must serve an answer within 21 days after being served with the
summons and complaint). Plaintiff’s motion for a writ of mandamus (ECF No. 19) is denied as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Chief United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 26, 2012

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3