Garner v. Brown
ORDER adopting the 9 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 7/18/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kantwan Kinte Garner,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-1268-CMC
Marcus Brown of Richland County Sheriff
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s complaint alleging he was held in jail for
twenty-seven months on false charges, denied a speedy trial, and the charges remained on his
record until 2015, well past the February 2008 date by which he alleges the charges were to be
tried or dismissed.1 ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02
(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for
pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on dispositive issues. On June
14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending this matter be summarily dismissed
without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process. ECF No. 9. The Magistrate Judge
advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if they failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on July 10,
2017. ECF No. 13.
Plaintiff filed two previous suits with the same factual allegations against the State of South
Carolina and the Richland County Sherriff’s Department. See Garner v. State of South Carolina,
No. 3:16-cv-03095; Garner v. Richland County Sherriff Department, No. 3:16-cv-00348. Those
suits were dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.
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).
After conducting a de novo review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court agrees with the
Report’s recommendation that the complaint should be dismissed. Plaintiff’s complaint does not
contain necessary factual information about his criminal case in Richland County, such as: when
he was arrested, when he was released, whether the charges were dropped and if so, when, whether
he asserted his right to a speedy trial during that prosecution, his charges, the circumstances of his
arrest, or even the criminal case number. In his objections, Plaintiff states “the details are clear
cut, I was falsely arrested knowingly just because of word of mouth in statements that don’t match
and states [sic] of the people who did the crime clearly stating they don’t know me caught on the
seen at the time of the crime.” ECF No. 13. There are a few facts such as the case was before
Judge Thomas in November of 2007, but this is not sufficient to determine anything further
regarding the criminal case. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to adequately plead his claims
of false imprisonment and violation of speedy trial requirements under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), which require sufficient factual
matter and more than conclusory statements. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by
reference in this Order. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 18, 2017
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?