Barnes v. Dedmondt et al

Filing 113

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 81 Report and Recommendations, 39 Motion to Dismiss filed by Brenda B Carpenter. DefendantCarpenter is dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of judicial immunity. The within action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 12/30/08. (swel, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA S t e v e n Louis Barnes, ) ) C/A No. 4:08-0002-MBS -TER P l a i n t i f f, ) ) v s. ) ) George Dedmondt, Brain Williams, ) S h a d e l l Stevens, Marcus Smith, Polly ) H a l l , A Dell Dobey, Brenda B. ) ORDER C a rp e n te r, Heidi Pressley, Randy Doran, ) Lt. Karren Jaggers, in th e ir official and ) in d iv i d u a l capacities, ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________) A t the time of the underlying complaint, Plaintiff Steven Louis Barnes was a pretrial detainee h e ld at the Edgefield County Detention Center (ECDC) in Edgefield, South Carolina. Plaintiff now is in custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Plaintiff currently is housed at Lieber C o r re c tio n a l Institution in Ridgeville, South Carolina. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action p u rs u a n t to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in various re s p e c ts . This matter is before the court on motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Brenda B. Carpenter o n April 21, 2008 (Entry 39). Defendant Carpenter asserts that Plaintiff's allegations arise out of a c t i o n s taken by her in her judicial capacity as magistrate judge for Edgefield County, South C a ro l in a . Defendant Carpenter contends that she is entitled to absolute immunity. By order filed A p r il 22, 2008, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4 th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised o f the dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. P la in tiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 29, 2008, to which Defendant

C a r p e n t e r filed a reply on June 9, 2008. Plaintiff filed an additional response in opposition on July 2 4 , 2008, to which Defendant Carpenter filed a reply on August 4, 2008. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III. On October 6, 2008, the Magistrate Judge i s s u e d a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the action be dismissed as to D e fe n d a n t Carpenter on the grounds that she is entitled to immunity from suit for alleged damages a ris in g from her judicial actions. The Magistrate Judge further noted that, to the extent the issues w e re raised, Plaintiff was not entitled to seek injunctive relief as to Defendant Carpenter, nor was h e entitled to institute a criminal prosecution against her. Despite being granted an extension of time (E n try 95), Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.

1

The last deadline for Plaintiff's response was November 13, 2008 (Entry 95). On November 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file dispositive motions (Entry 100). This motion does not appear to relate to the Report and Recommendation. The motion was granted and time extended to December 3, 2008. On December 8, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time as to all pretrial motions (Entry 107). This motion also does not appear to relate to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the court does not consider that Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to respond to the Report and Recommendation past November 13, 2008. In any event, the December 3, 2008 deadline has passed, and the court in not inclined to grant further extensions to the time to object to the Report and Recommendation, which now has been pending nearly ninety days. 2

§ 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to give any e x p l a n a t i o n for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). T h e court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the M a gis tra te Judge. The Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant C a r p e n t e r is dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of judicial immunity. The within action is re c o m m itte d to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina D e ce m b e r 30, 2008.

3