Sevier v. Haley et al
Filing
13
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff's motion for ECF Filing Access is rendered MOOT, for 9 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on August 11, 2016. (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Chris Sevier,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Nimrata Randhawa Haley, in her official capacity )
as Governor of South Carolina, also known as
)
Nikki; Alan M. Wilson, in his official capacity as )
Attorney General of South Carolina; and
)
Beth Carrigg, in her official capacity as Clerk of
)
Lexington County,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________ )
Case No.: 3:16-665-TLW
ORDER
Plaintiff Chris Sevier, proceeding pro se, filed this action on March 1, 2016, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to compel South Carolina to expand its definition of marriage to
include the right to marry inanimate objects and to recognize Plaintiff’s marriage to his
computer. (ECF No. 1). This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on March 24, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge
Shiva V. Hodges (ECF No. 9), to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff filed Objections to the
Report on May 25, 2016. (ECF No. 12).
In conducting its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the
magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the Objections. Accordingly, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report. (ECF No. 9). The
Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 12) are OVERRULED. See United States v. Patel, 879 F.2d
292, 295 (7th Cir. 1989) (“When issues patently lack merit, the reviewing court is not obliged to
devote scarce judicial resources to a written discussion of them.”).
For the reasons stated in the Report and those stated herein, the Plaintiff’s Complaint
(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. In
light of the Court’s dismissal of the case, Plaintiff’s Motion for ECF Filing Access (ECF No. 3)
is rendered MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
August 11, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
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?