Johnson v. Robert et al

Filing 48

ORDER granting 39 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 43 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 6/7/18.(mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

Miyuki Maureen Johnson,

C/A No. 3:17-3017-JFA
Plaintiff,

vs.
ORDER
Russell Roberts and Walter Roland, in their
individual and personal capacities,
Defendants.

Miyuki Maureen Johnson (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, brings this action against United
States Postal Service employees, Russell Roberts and Walter Roland (Defendants). Plaintiff, a
postal customer, claims that Rowland violated the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552
(FOIA), Roberts violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and both violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1954, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Title VII) and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiff
alleges that the above violations occurred during or as a result of her visit to the post office to apply
for a passport.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 20, 2018, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 39). By order issued on April 20, 2018, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the procedure in regards to the Motion to
Dismiss and the possible consequences if she failed to respond adequately to Defendants’ Motion.
(ECF No. 40). Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ Motion on May 7, 2018. (ECF No. 42).

1

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (Report) and opines that this Court should grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 43). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the Court incorporates such without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that
the Motion to Dismiss should be granted because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be
granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on May 17, 2018. However, the Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has
now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate’s recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and grants
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39) without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 7, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the Court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2