Smith v. Toal et al

Filing 12

OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 8 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 3/20/2014. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Samuel N. Smith,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jean H. Toal; Rick Quinn; T. Stephen Lynch;
William J. Condon, Jr.; Sandra Matthews;
Tracey Colton Green; Mitchell Willoughby;
John M.S. Hoefer; World Capital Brokerage, Inc.;
Allianz Life Insurance Company; Gameplan
Financial Marketing, LLC; John Carrigg; S. Jahue
Moore; Tiffany Richardson; Bryan Cantrell;
Lindsey Graham; Addison Graves Wilson, Sr.;
Alan Wilson; John E. Courson; William N. Nettles;
David A. Thomas; Nimrati Randhawa Haley;
State of South Carolina; Henry D. McMaster;
Glenn McConnell; FINRA; Donita Todd;
Rich O’Dell; Cindi Scoppe; Daniel E. Shearouse;
Major John Tate; and Susan B. Lipscomb,
Defendants.
_________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A NO. 3:14-507-CMC-SVH

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On March 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements
for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on March 19, 2014.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has

1

no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections,
the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
The Report concludes that the complaint should be dismissed because its allegations are
insufficient to establish that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction). See Report at 7, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff argues that he has “spell[ed] out the allegations,”
Obj. at 4, ECF No. 11, and that the listing of a variety of federal statutes are “the ‘allegations’. . .
[and] my basis” for this court’s jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. As correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff
“fails [to] demonstrate any type of federal claim against Defendants and fails to show that this case
arises under federal law.” Report at 7, ECF No. 8.
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
March 20, 2014
2