Qadir v. Wilson et al

Filing 48

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 44 Report and Recommendation. After careful review of the Second Report and the objections, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Second Report, ECF No. 44, is A CCEPTED. Plaintiffs objections, ECF No. 47, are OVERRULED. Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies outlined in the First Report and the Second Report, despite being given ample opportunity to do so, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 4/15/20. (swel, )

4:17-cv-02193-TLW

Date Filed 04/15/20

Entry Number 48

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Muhammad W.K. Abdul Qadir,

Case No. 4:17-cv-02193-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.

Order

Latrell S. Wilson, et al.,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Muhammad W.K. Abdul Qadir, proceeding pro se, filed this civil
action alleging various federal and state causes of action. ECF No. 1. The magistrate
judge to whom the case was assigned conducted a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), determined that the complaint was frivolous or failed to state a claim
on which relief may be granted, and therefore issued a Report and Recommendation
(First Report) recommending that the case be dismissed. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff filed
objections to the report and a motion to amend his complaint. ECF Nos. 11, 12.
Because Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint with his
motion to amend, the Court allowed him 30 days to submit a renewed motion to
amend with a proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 15. He then did so. ECF No.
18. However, because his proposed amended complaint did not fix the deficiencies
outlined in the First Report, the Court accepted the First Report, denied his motion
to amend, and dismissed the case without prejudice. ECF No. 20.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded that the
Court’s dismissal order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
1

4:17-cv-02193-TLW

Date Filed 04/15/20

Entry Number 48

Page 2 of 3

collateral order, and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Qadir v.

Wilson, 748 F. App’x 564, 564 (4th Cir. 2019). The Fourth Circuit directed that, on
remand, the Court should either afford Plaintiff another opportunity to amend his
complaint or dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Id.
After the case was remanded, the Court recommitted the matter to the
magistrate judge with direction to determine whether to allow another attempt at an
amended complaint or to dismiss the case with prejudice.

ECF No. 35.

The

magistrate judge allowed him additional time to submit a new amended complaint
and he did so. ECF Nos. 38, 40.
With the latest amended complaint in hand, the magistrate judge conducted
another review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). After her review, the magistrate judge
prepared a new Report and Recommendation (Second Report), noting that “Plaintiff
amended the complaint, removing three defendants, but otherwise asserting the
same claims.” ECF No. 44 at 2. In the Second Report, the magistrate judge engaged
in a thorough analysis of the claims raised. She determined that the amended
complaint was frivolous or failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and
therefore recommended dismissal.

Plaintiff then filed objections to the Second

Report. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the Second Report, 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
2

4:17-cv-02193-TLW

Date Filed 04/15/20

Entry Number 48

Page 3 of 3

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 Second Report and the objections. After careful review of the Second Report and
the objections, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Second Report,
ECF No. 44, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 47, are OVERRULED.
Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies outlined in the First Report and
the Second Report, despite being given ample opportunity to do so, this case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
April 15, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

3