Rev. Franklin C. Reaves v. South Carolina Department of Social Services et al

Filing 63

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Court accepts 53 Report and Recommendation, overrules plaintiff's objections, grants 9 Motion to Dismiss filed by South Carolina Department of Social Services-Willie D Reaves and she is dismissed from this action. Additionally, the entire action is dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, any remaining pending motions are deemed MOOT. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 12/2/08. (swel, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -vs) ) ) South Carolina DSS, Willie D. Reaves, ) Hybert Strickland, ) The Honorable Sherry R. Rhodes, ) Marion County Sheriff's Department, ) Mark Richardson, Deputy C. Smith, ) Deputy Davis, Marion County Jail, ) Marion County Prison Farm and ) Tim Harper, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 4:08-576-TLW-TER ORDER This action has been filed by the plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In his Report, Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends that the defendant Willie D. Reaves' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) be granted and that she be dismissed from this action. It is further recommended that the entire action be dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Report was filed on October 27, 2008. (Doc. # 53). Plaintiff filed objections on November 5, 2008. (Doc. # 56) In conducting this review, 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 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. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto. The Court accepts the Report. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 53); plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 56); defendant Willie D. Reaves' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) is granted and she is dismissed from this action. Additionally, the entire action is dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, any remaining pending motions are deemed MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten TERRY L. WOOTEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE December 2, 2008 Florence, South Carolina -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?