Gittens v. Rakowsky
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 3/16/2015. (cbru, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jamaal A. Gittens,
) Civil Action No.: 3:15-719-MGL-SVH
Judge John R. Rakowsky,
On February 19, 2015, Plaintiff Jamaal A. Gittens, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action, construed as pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking money damages
against Defendant, a municipal judge in Lexington County, SC, who entered a judgment and
conviction against Plaintiff for speeding. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva
V. Hodges for review. On February 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge prepared a Report and
Recommendation, (ECF No. 10), (“the Report”), which recommends that this action be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, as Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set
out a plausible claim for which relief can be granted. Objections to the Report were due by March
16, 2015. Although Plaintiff filed two separate “Objections” to the Report, (ECF Nos. 12 and 13),
neither filing sets out in a coherent way specific objections to the Report.
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.
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). 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).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
Plaintiff’s responses to the Report or “Objections.” The Court has undertaken a de novo review,
even though Plaintiff’s responsive filings do not advance specific objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report. Instead, Plaintiff’s “Objections” amount to restatements of his claim of perceived
unfair treatment at the hands of Defendant, the municipal judge who presided over Plaintiff’s
speeding violation case. (ECF Nos. 12 and 13). At one point, Plaintiff even acknowledges that he
failed to provide adequate evidence to support his lawsuit, (ECF No. 13 at p.2), and attaches five
pages of additional “supporting documents” for the Court’s review. (ECF No. 13-1). Ultimately,
none of Plaintiff’s arguments or supplemental documents meaningfully address the Magistrate
Judge’s central determination that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to set out a plausible claim for money
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 10). Accordingly, this action
is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
March 16, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?