Blackstock v. Hartsville Magistrate Court Clerk

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 12 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 04/24/2018. (lsut, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Sepia Vonnetta Blackstock,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Hartsville Magistrate Court Clerk, )
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-02999-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West.1 See ECF Nos. 12
& 14. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s pro se complaint without
prejudice. R & R at p. 6.
Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court must conduct a
de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report
to which 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 [C]ourt to a specific error

1

The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.).

in the [M]agistrate [Judge]’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only for
clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Discussion2
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint naming the “Hartsville Magistrate Court
Clerk” as the sole Defendant and purporting to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”), and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See ECF
No. 1. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because (1)
Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and (2) Plaintiff fails to state any plausible claims
against Defendant under the statutes and laws mentioned in her complaint. See R & R at pp. 4–6.
Plaintiff has filed objections, but she does not specifically object to the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations summarized above.3 See Diamond & Camby, supra (stating
that absent a specific objection, the Court need only review the R & R for clear error and need not give
reasons for adopting it). Instead, she generally “objects to the dismissal of [this] case,” asks to
“withdraw” her FOIA claim, and states she “would like to also add as a basis for my lawsuit violation
of my political rights, which are an example of Unenumerated rights which arise from the U.S.
2

The R & R thoroughly summarizes the factual and procedural background of this case, as well as the
applicable legal standards.
3

Plaintiff appears to address Footnote 1 in the R & R via her submission of correspondence apparently sent
to Defendant. Compare R & R at n.1, with ECF No. 14-1 at pp. 1–4. The Court notes Plaintiff’s submission does
not affect its decision to adopt the R & R.

2

Constitution.” See ECF No. 14 at pp. 1–2; ECF No. 14-2 at p. 2. Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis
for this Court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition, and therefore the Court
will adopt the R & R.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No.
12] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
April 24, 2018

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

4

In the Court’s view, Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in her complaint by mere amendment. See Goode v.
Cent. Virginia Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015). The Court therefore declines to
automatically give Plaintiff leave to amend.

3