Dinkins-Robinson v. South Carolina Department of Education

Filing 19

ORDER accepting the 7 Report and Recommendation, overruling Plaintiff's objections, and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint without prejudice. Motion denied: 15 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 9/7/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Benita Dinkins-Robinson,

Case No. 3:17-cv-02629-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order
South Carolina Department of Education;
Todd Bedenbaugh,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Benita Dinkins-Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging
various federal and state causes of action. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court
for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this
case was assigned. ECF No. 7. In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that the Complaint
be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Soon after the
issuance of the R&R, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that was substantially identical to the
Complaint.1 ECF No. 14. She also filed objections to the R&R. ECF No. 13. This matter is now
ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, 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
1

The Amended Complaint added Todd Bedenbaugh as a defendant, but it did not explain who he
is, and there is no reference to him in the Amended Complaint. An individual named Todd
Benendum is included in a list of individuals who “will testify and vertify [sic] the above Title IV
and Title VI violations.” ECF No. 14 at 6, ¶ 35. It is not clear if this is the same person.
1

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. Hous. Auth. of 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 R&R and
the objections. After careful review of the R&R and the objections, for the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the R&R is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s
Complaint and Amended Complaint are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2
Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and after consideration of the relevant factors,
the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995) (directing district courts to consider
“convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy,
comity, and considerations of judicial economy”).
Plaintiff also seeks a change in venue and the undersigned’s recusal because the
undersigned was the judge for her criminal trial and sentencing. 3 ECF No. 15. There is no merit
to this motion, and it is therefore DENIED. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 455 (setting forth the standard
for recusal); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[O]pinions formed by the judge
on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of

2

Because the Amended Complaint is virtually identical to the Complaint, the analysis in the R&R
applies equally to the Amended Complaint.
Contemporaneously with the issuance of this order, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 petition challenging her federal convictions. Dinkins-Robinson v. United States, No.
3:14-cr-00300-TLW-1 (D.S.C.), ECF No. 150.
3

2

prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”); Marks v.
Cook, 347 F. App’x 915, 917 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that the district judge properly denied a
motion for recusal in a civil case where the judge previously presided over a criminal proceeding
against one of the plaintiffs).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
September 7, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3