Jackson v. University of South Carolina

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 3/25/2015. (mdea )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mamie Jackson,

)
) C/A No. 3:15-0139-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
University of South Carolina,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Mamie Jackson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on
January 12, 2015, alleging that Defendant University of South Carolina violated her constitutional
rights and discriminated against by refusing her admission to a foreign language class after the
deadline for enrollment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Paige J. Gossett for
pretrial handling.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). On February
27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she noted that
Defendant is protected from suit by the Eleventh Amendment, and that, in any event, Defendant is
not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
the case be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Plaintiff filed no response to the Report and Recommendation.
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). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.

The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons stated herein and in the
Report and Recommendation, the complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
March 25, 2015

2