Ahad v. Lee et al

Filing 27

ORDER: The 19 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge. The 26 Motion for Extension of Time is TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 5/8/2017. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bahaadur Aalim Abd ‘ul’ Ahad,

Case No. 4:16-3958-TLW-TER

PLAINTIFF
v.
Rob Lee, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as Chesterfield County Under
Sheriff, Chesterfield County Sheriff’s Office,
Chesterfield County, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, John
Doe Persons, Wayne Jordan, Breanna Davis,

ORDER

DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Bahaadur Aalim Abd ‘ul’ Ahad, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) 1, alleging that Defendants violated his
Constitutional rights in connection with their decision not to prosecute an individual whom
Plaintiff asserts assaulted him. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of
the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by Magistrate Judge Rogers, to whom this case was
assigned. ECF No. 19. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Complaint should be
summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process because it fails
to state a cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff filed objections to the
R&R. ECF No. 24. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard:

1

Plaintiff also asserts Defendants violated various other state and federal statutes but, as stated in
the Report and Recommendation, no private right of action exists under those statutes. ECF No.
19 at 2-3. Additionally, although Plaintiff mentions a claim for intention infliction of emotional
distress, there is no independent basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over such a claim in
light of the dismissal of the federal claims that he asserts form the basis of federal jurisdiction in
this case. See ECF No. 10 at 3.
1

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. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed de novo the R&R and
Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s objections focus on whether Defendants should have been served
with process in this case, but do not address the legal analysis set forth in the R&R which explains
why Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After an appropriate
review, the R&R is ACCEPTED and Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s

Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process for
the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
May 8, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2

After the R&R was filed, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time to serve Defendants. ECF
No. 26. The Court reviewed this filing and finds that it fails to cure the fundamental deficiency
identified in the R&R—the failure of the Complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. In light of this analysis the motion to extend time is TERMINATED AS MOOT.
2