Tate v. State et al
Filing
12
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation and dismissing case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 9/13/2016. (mdea )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Phyllis Tate and R.F.,
)
) C/A No. 3:16-2714-MBS
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
State, Department of Social Services,
)
and Richland County Sheriff’s
)
Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiffs Phyllis Tate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on August
3, 2015, alleging Defendants violated her and her daughter’s constitutional rights. 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 Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On August 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she noted
(1) Plaintiff cannot proceed pro se on behalf of her daughter, R.F.; (2) the South Carolina
Department of Social Services and Richland County Sheriff’s Department are not “persons”
amenable to suit under § 1983; and (3) the South Carolina Department of Social Services and
Richland County Sheriff’s Department are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from being
sued in federal court. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s complaint be
summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed
no objections 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 concurs in the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge and incorporates the Report and Recommendation herein by reference.
Plaintiff’s complaint is 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
September 13, 2016
2
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?