McEachern v. Gray et al

Filing 108

ORDER adopting 77 Report and Recommendation; adopting 91 Report and Recommendation, granting defendants' motions to dismiss 50 , 54 , 58 , and 83 ; denying 67 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by the Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/27/2015. (hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-1234-BHH
Freddie McEachern, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Opinion and Order

James Gray Jr., City of Marion, SC Dept.
of Social Service, SC Dept. of Education,
SC Dept. of Judicial Review, SC
Residential Builder Comm., SC Election
Comm., Marion County, and Sheriff Mark
Richardson,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
91) (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West recommending that the Court
grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report in full. 1
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, Freddie McEachern, Jr., proceeding pro se, brought this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge West for pretrial handling. The details of the plaintiff’s varied and outrageous

1

In addition to the Report at issue in this Order, the Magistrate Judge also issued a Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 77) (“Default Report”) recommending that the plaintiff’s motion for
default (ECF No. 67) be denied because the defendants filed appropriate responsive pleadings
by the dates on which they were due. The plaintiff filed an objection to the Default Report,
which the Court has carefully reviewed. After conducting a de novo review of the filings
relevant to the motion for default judgment, the Court overrules the plaintiff’s objection, and
adopts the Default Report (ECF No. 77) in full.

1

claims are set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report, and the Court will not
recite them all again here. Sufficed to say, the plaintiff seeks to recover for a wide
range of alleged societal ills, including corruption in law enforcement, the mistreatment
of African-American school children, and the improper denial of family leave or workers
compensation benefits for employees of the City of Marion. He also appears to be
asserting claims arising out of the loss of his job with City of Marion in 2006 and the
City’s refusal to hire him again in 2012. The defendants filed motions to dismiss (see
ECF Nos. 50, 54, 58, and 83), and the Magistrate Judge has recommended that the
motions be granted for a number of reasons, including the fact that the plaintiff (1)
lacks standing because he has failed to allege an injury in fact, (2) fails to state
sufficient facts under Rule 8, and (3) asserts of number of claims (e.g., whistle blower
retaliation, employment discrimination, and defamation) for which the statutes of
limitations have expired. The plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 93) to the Report on
June 17, 2015.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Report
to which specific objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct
a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982) ( “[D]e novo
review [is] unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendation.”). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of a specific objection. Furthermore, in the absence of a timely filed, specific objection,
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, the
Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court
may also “receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.
Motion to Dismiss
A plaintiff’s complaint should set forth “a short and plain statement . . . showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8 “does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To show that the
plaintiff is “entitled to relief,” the complaint must provide “more than labels and

3

conclusions,” and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule

12(b)(6), the Court “accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the
light

most

favorable

to

the

plaintiff

. . . .”

Nemet

Chevrolet,

Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009).

Ltd.

v.

Notably, “legal

conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement” do not qualify as well pled facts.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must state “a plausible
claim for relief.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’
a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.’”

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Stated differently,

“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the
pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). Still, Rule 12(b)(6) “does
not countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual
allegations.” Colon Health Centers of Am., LLC v. Hazel, 733 F.3d 535, 545 (4th Cir.
2013) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

“A plausible but

inconclusive inference from pleaded facts will survive a motion to dismiss . . . .”
Sepulveda-Villarini v. Dep’t of Educ. of Puerto Rico, 628 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 2010)
(Souter, J.).

4

DISCUSSION
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff’s complaint should
be dismissed.

The plaintiff filed objections, but after carefully reviewing them, the

Court finds that they are non-specific and fail to direct the Court to any flaw in the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

The objections merely rehash the plaintiff’s factual

allegations without addressing the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. As
such, the objections are general and conclusory, and the Court finds no error in the
Report.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that the plaintiff’s objections are without merit.

Accordingly, the Court

overrules the objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 50, 54, 58, and 83) are
hereby GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
motion for default judgment (ECF No. 67) is DENIED as set forth in footnote 1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 27, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

5

The