Scott v. Verizon Wireless

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/22/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Maurice Wyman Scott,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Verizon Wireless,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )

C/A NO. 3:15-1230-CMC-SVH

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint asserting federal and state law
claims against Defendant.
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 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that the matter be dismissed without prejudice. 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 April 20, 2015.
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).
The court has conducted a de novo review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
1

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.
Plaintiff offers insufficient evidence or argument to establish that Defendant was, at the time
of the alleged events, operating under color of state law. Plaintiff contends that he “could have
inferred prosecutorial misconduct,” Obj. at ¶ 4, ECF No. 14, obliquely attempting to tie Defendant’s
alleged actions to that of a governmental agency.

Plaintiff’s contention is without merit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed without prejudice.
As to Plaintiff’s state law claims, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant is incorporated in
Delaware. Obj. at ¶ 7, ECF No. 14. However, as noted by the Report, even if Plaintiff were able
to adequately plead diversity of citizenship, South Carolina courts recognize the common law
absolute privilege that protects statements by judges, parties, and witnesses arising out of, or having
any relation to, a judicial proceeding. See Pond Place Partners, Inc. v. Poole, S.E.2d 881, 892-93
(S.C. Ct. App. 2002). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
This action 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
April 22, 2015

2