Hiott v. State of South Carolina
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court finds the Magistrate Judges recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 04/21/2011. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Alden Hiott, a/k/a Alden D. Hiott; James
Gibson, Next of Friend,
State of South Carolina,
C/A No. 4:10-2759-JFA-TER
The plaintiff, Alden Hiott, is confined as a sexually violent predator (SVP). He brings
this action, through his Next of Friend, James Gibson, seeking appointment of an attorney
and a guardian ad litem for Mr. Hiott. Although the plaintiff signed the motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, Mr. Hiott did not sign the complaint form. Rather, it was signed by Mr.
Gibson as his Next of Friend. It appears the parties seek removal of a state court action
concerning Mr. Hiott’s annual review hearing (relating to his status as an SVP) to this court
to hold a Rule 59(e) hearing to reconsider a prior decision in state court.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should summarily dismiss this action
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02. 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).
because this court lacks jurisdiction and Mr. Gibson, as Next of Friend, has no standing to
bring this case. 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 plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report which was
entered on the docket on December 8, 2010. Mr. Gibson filed objections noting that he is
in no way seeking to remove the case for Mr. Hiott, nor is he attempting to defend it. Mr.
Gibson indicates that Mr. Hiott is incompetent and he seeks only fairness by way of a hearing
on state issues that allegedly have violated Mr. Hiott’s constitutional rights. Mr. Gibson then
contends that no complaint has been filed, so Mr. Hiott’s signature would not be required at
this point. Because Mr. Gibson has no standing in this action, the objections will not be
As the Magistrate Judge correctly points out in his Report, this court is precluded from
reviewing the findings or rulings made by state courts. See District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413 (1923). Thus, this action must be summarily dismissed.
While the court was preparing this order, Mr. Gibson filed a motion for dismissal
without prejudice (ECF No. 17) pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and has attached a stipulation of dismissal signed by Mr. Hiott. However, as Mr.
Gibson has no standing in this action, his motion must be dismissed.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and
incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 21, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina
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?