Rogers v. Valentino et al

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation; denying 13 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff's complaint is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/21/2015.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Hayward L. Rogers, #278510,
Plaintiff,
v.
Martha M. Valentino, City of West
Columbia, SC; Jason Amodio, West
Columbia Police Dept.; Wendy Frazier,
West Columbia Police Dept.; Dayton
Riddle, Lexington County Asst. Solicitor;
Wanda Carter, Appellate Defense; Tara
Dawn Shurling, Esq.; William E. Salter,
Asst. Attorney General; and William Y.
Rast, Esq.,
Defendants.

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

C/A No. 3:14-4271-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff
timely filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend the
complaint. (ECF No. 13).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The Report has no
presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains
with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In making that
determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review of those portions of the
Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Then, the court may
accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge. Id.

As set forth above, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15).
However, the court has thoroughly reviewed the Report, Plaintiff’s objections, and the record in
this case and finds no reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended disposition. As the
Magistrate Judge stated in his Report, Plaintiff’s action is based upon conduct which occurred in
1998, and is barred by the statute of limitations. (Report at 8). The court finds Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is denied as futile. “[L]eave to
amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the
opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would
be futile.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Johnson v.
Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff has not
proposed any amendment that would remedy the deficiencies in his complaint; it is still barred by
the statute of limitations. Thus, the court denies the motion as futile.
Based on the foregoing, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff’s
complaint is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. Further, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 21, 2015

2