Thomas v. Richland County Clerk of Courts Office et al

Filing 19

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 04/29/2011. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Peter L. Thomas,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Richland County Clerk of Court’s Office;
)
Jeanette W. McBride, Clerk of Court; Anne G. )
Kelly, Chief Deputy Clerk of Court; and
)
Richland County Judicial Center,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________
)

C/A No. 4:11-367-JFA-TER

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Peter L. Thomas, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming violations of his constitutional rights with regard to his right to self-representation
in his pending state criminal case, and allegations of denial of access to the courts. He seeks
monetary and injunctive relief.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a comprehensive Report
and Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without
a recitation and without a hearing.

1

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).

1

The plaintiff was advised of his right to submit objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was filed on April 1, 2011. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
Report which this court will review de novo.
The Magistrate Judge suggests that defendants McBride, Kelly, and the Richland
County Clerk of Court’s office are protected from suit by the doctrine of quasi-judicial
immunity. Defendant McBride, as the Clerk of Court, is also immune from suit by virtue of
the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finally, defendant Richland
County Judicial Center is a building or facility, not a “person” subject to liability under §
1983. The Magistrate Judge properly opines that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim
against these defendants and thus, dismissal of the complaint is warranted.
Moreover, the Magistrate Judge notes that with regard to the plaintiff’s request for
injunctive relief, this court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings.
As extraordinary circumstances are lacking, this court cannot justify its intervention into the
State of South Carolina’s administration of justice in the plaintiff’s criminal matters.
Plaintiff’s complaint centers around the reappointment, allegedly after a mass
reassignment, of his public defender, without plaintiff’s consent and despite the plaintiff’s
request to represent himself in his ongoing state criminal proceedings.
In his objections to the Report, the plaintiff repeats the allegations raised in his
complaint and contends that the State of South Carolina has conspired with a federal agency,
Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), in his unlawful arrest, detention, and prosecution.
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections and finds them to be without merit.

2

After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, 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.

April 29, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3