Reaves v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 15 , is ACCEPTED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 11/17/2022. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Kathy Reaves, a/k/a Kathy Juanita
Reaves

Case No. 3:22-cv-1323-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
South Carolina Department of Public
Safety, South Carolina Division of
Motor Vehicles, and South Carolina
Highway Patrol

Order

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Kathy Reaves, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
action against the following South Carolina agencies: the South Carolina Department
of Public Safety, the South Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, and the South
Carolina Highway Patrol. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brings her suit pursuant to the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments and under 28 U.S.C. § 4101 and the Privacy Act. Id at
1. The Court is familiar with the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint
as Plaintiff has a number of pending actions and recently dismissed actions before
this Court. See 4:22-cv-00318-TLW; 4:22-cv-00639-TLW; 4:22-cv-00856-TLW; 3:22cv-01399-TLW; 4:22-cv-01806-TLW, etc.
Plaintiff’s complaint was referred to the Honorable Thomas E. Rogers, III,
United States Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36b(b)(1)(B). The
magistrate judge issued a proper form order directing Plaintiff to bring her complaint
Page 1 of 3

into proper form by filing an amended complaint and providing the appropriate
documents necessary for service. ECF. Additionally, the magistrate judge directed
Plaintiff to answer a set of special interrogatories. ECF No. 5–1. Plaintiff has not filed
an amended complaint.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed by the magistrate judge. ECF No. 15. In the Report,
the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because the allegations in the complaint are duplicative
of her allegations in Case No. 4:22-cv-00318-TLW. See id. at 3. Further, the
magistrate judge noted that “[i]t is a waste of judicial resources to request Plaintiff
[to] name actual persons as defendants instead of an agency as the court already did
this in No. 4:22-cv-318 and Plaintiff is pursuing some individual defendants,
regarding this same incident in that court action.” Id. at 4. The Report concludes that
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and this action
is subject to summary dismissal[.] Id. at 5. Plaintiff did not file objections to the
Report. This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review,
Page 2 of 3

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 & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 15, is ACCEPTED. This matter is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE
OF PROCESS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
November 17, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3