Walker v. Tyndall

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepts 11 Report and Recommendation. This action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/1/2017. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
David Richard Walker, Jr. #188417,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chief Dennis Tyndall, Police,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-03536-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) (ECF No. 11), filed on October 14, 2015, recommending that this action be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim on
which relief can be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards
on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)).

Moreover, the court is charged with making a de novo

determination of those portions of a report and recommendation to which specific objections are
made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, a magistrate judge’s
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Furthermore,
objections to a report and recommendation must specifically identify portions of the report and the
basis for those objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

1

Plaintiff was notified of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff
filed timely objections to the Report on November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 14.) In his objections, Plaintiff
argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that defamation, slander, and libel are not
actionable claims pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 14 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff

asserts that defamation, slander and libel are “Constitutional Tort[s]” that are actionable under
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 14 at 2.) However, Plaintiff fails to support this assertion or
identify any basis for his objections. Furthermore, alleged acts of defamation of character or
injury to reputation are not actionable under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 11 at 4 (citing
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697-710 & nn. 3-4 (1976)).) Moreover, the court finds that the
Magistrate Judge did not err in determining that defamation, libel, and slander are not actionable
claims pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
After a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds
that the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and the law. Additionally, the court finds
that the Report contains no clear error. Therefore, the court ACCEPTS the Report and
Recommendation.

(ECF No. 11.)

For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is

ORDERED that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
March 1, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2