Hayes et al v. Berry et al

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re: 5 Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as modified and this action is dismissed. Signed by the Honorable Sherri A. Lydon on November 21, 2022.(ahil)

3:20-cv-03039-SAL

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 18

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Demetric Hayes and Carla Marshall

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Joe Earle Berry, Jr.; Phillip K. Stephens;
)
Lucas Stephens; Gary Finklea; William H. )
Edwards; Albert J. Dooley, Jr.; Mary M.
)
Caskey; James Y. Becker; Scott D. Whittle; )
Stephens Remodeling, LLC; Haynsworth )
Sinkler Boyd, P.A. Law Firm; Finklea Law )
Firm; Moore Taylor Law Firm; JP Morgan )
Chase Bank, N.A.; County of Lexington;
)
and Lexington County Sheriff’s Department,)
)
Defendants. )
)

C/A No.: 3:20-3039-SAL

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges (the “Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 5.] Plaintiffs, proceeding
pro se, assert claims relating to the foreclosure of a property located in Gaston, South Carolina.
[ECF No. 1.] The Report finds this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims
because they have failed to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
or federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. [ECF No. 5 at 1-2.] The Report
recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs filed an objection
to the Report, ECF No. 12, and this matter is ripe for ruling. For the reasons outlined below, the
court adopts the Report as modified and dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3:20-cv-03039-SAL

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 18

Page 2 of 5

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter. [ECF No.
5 at 2-7.] This court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. 1
REVIEW OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
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 this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination only of those portions of the report that have been specifically objected to,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and 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) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
“An objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—
factual and legal—that are the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the
Carolinas, LLC, No. 0:15-cv-04009, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2017) (citation
omitted). A specific objection “requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the [pleading]
or a mere citation to legal authorities.” Sims v. Lewis, No. 6:17-cv-3344, 2019 WL 1365298, at *2
(D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2019). It must “direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Thus, “[i]n

1

Plaintiff did not specifically object to the Magistrate Judge’s recitation of the factual background
or legal standards.
2

3:20-cv-03039-SAL

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 18

Page 3 of 5

the absence of specific objections … this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation.” Field v. McMaster, 663 F. Supp. 2d 449, 451–52 (4th Cir. 2009).
ANALYSIS
The court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, holding them to a less stringent standard
than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97 (1976). This does not mean, however, that the court can ignore a pro se party’s failure to
allege or prove facts that establish a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller
v. Dep’t of Soc. Services, 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiffs argue this court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
the Defendants deprived them “of [their] rights or privileges protected by the Constitution or laws
of the United States … in violation of federal law” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [ECF No. 12 at 1-2.]
Specifically, Plaintiffs object to the Report’s failure to address their claims made against Albert J.
Dooley, Jr. in his capacity as special referee 2 and Scott D. Whittle in his capacity as a county
magistrate 3 (collectively, “the Judicial Defendants”). Plaintiffs make no other objections to the
Report.

The court agrees that the Magistrate Judge failed to address these claims. However,

Plaintiffs have failed to show the Judicial Defendants are not immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983
liability under judicial immunity.
Judges have immunity from a claim for damages arising out of their judicial actions. See
Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Chu v. Griffith, 771 F.2d 79, 81 (4th Cir. 1985); Boseman
v. Walsh, et al., No. 3:22-1482-TLW, 2022 WL 16744736 at *1. For Plaintiffs to establish the

2

Once a matter is referred, the special referee has the same power and authority as a state circuit
court judge sitting without a jury would have in a similar matter. See S.C. R. Civ. P. Rule 53(c)
(citing S.C. Code Ann. § 14-11-60).
3
“Magistrates are judicial officers, and are thus entitled to absolute immunity under the same
conditions as judges.” King v. Myers, 973 F.2d 354 (4th Cir.1992).
3

3:20-cv-03039-SAL

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 18

Page 4 of 5

Judicial Defendants are not shielded by this immunity they must show (1) the judges’ actions were
undertaken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction and (2) the acts were not judicial acts. See King
v. Myers, 973 F.2d 354, 356-57 (4th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs offer no evidence to suggest that either
Judicial Defendant acted outside the scope of his jurisdiction or that the actions were not judicial
in nature. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish liability under § 1983 against Defendants
Dooley and Whittle.
A federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists
“and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347,
352 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”) Plaintiffs have failed to show
any valid basis for jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, the case must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in
accordance with the above standard, the court finds Plaintiffs have failed to establish a valid basis
for this court’s jurisdiction, adopts the Report, ECF No. 5, and incorporates the Report by reference
herein. The court adopts the Report as modified to the extent it dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Joe Earle Berry, Jr.; Phillip K. Stephens; Lucas Stephens; Gary Finklea; William H.
Edwards; Mary M. Caskey; James Y. Becker; Stephens Remodeling, LLC; Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A. Law Firm; Finklea Law Firm; Moore Taylor Law Firm; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
County of Lexington; and Lexington County Sheriff’s Department. The court further dismisses
the action against Defendants Albert J. Dooley, Jr., and Scott D. Whittle for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction due to those Defendants’ judicial immunity from claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §

4

3:20-cv-03039-SAL

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 18

Page 5 of 5

1983. As a result, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Sherri A. Lydon
Sherri A. Lydon
United States District Judge

November 21, 2022
Florence, South Carolina

5