Brown v. Supreme Court of South Carolina et al

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 15 ), and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The court DENIES any and all pending motions as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 05/06/2022. (dsto, )

4:22-cv-00164-TMC

Date Filed 05/06/22

Entry Number 24

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Demetrius Alexander Brown,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
State of South Carolina; Supreme Court )
of South Carolina; Sumter County Court )
of General Sessions; Sumter County )
Court of Common Pleas; and Sumter )
County Solicitor’s Office,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-164-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff Demetrius Alexander Brown, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, including an order directing a state court to “hear [his] pretrial pro se motions as
soon as practical” in his ongoing state criminal proceedings; an order directing a state court to
grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with state civil proceedings
challenging the conditions of his confinement; an order requiring the office of a state prosecutor
to expunge certain state convictions from his record; an order requiring the office of a state
prosecutor to “correct [his] file and records in [the] DMV”; and an order directing the State of
South Carolina to “accept” his motion under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. (ECF No. 10
at 21–23).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.),
this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. On February 17, 2022,
the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), concluding that “Plaintiff
1

4:22-cv-00164-TMC

Date Filed 05/06/22

Entry Number 24

Page 2 of 3

has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as to the Defendants. Plaintiff was
already informed that Defendants were not persons under § 1983 and were subject to summary
dismissal. Thus, Plaintiff’s action is subject to summary dismissal.” (ECF No. 15 at 6). The
magistrate judge, therefore, recommended that the court summarily dismiss this action with
prejudice and without issuance and service of process and that the court deny all pending motions
as moot. Id. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and of the
consequences of failing to do so in a timely fashion. Id. at 7. On March 11, 2022, the Report was
mailed to Plaintiff at the updated address he provided the court, (ECF Nos. 17; 20), and it has not
been returned as undeliverable. Thus, Plaintiff is presumed to have received it. Nevertheless,
Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time to do so has now run.
The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility
for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,
774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)).
Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to
which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed.
App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982)). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation
made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is
not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers

2

4:22-cv-00164-TMC

Date Filed 05/06/22

Entry Number 24

Page 3 of 3

Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–
200 (4th Cir. 1983)).
Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate standards and,
finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 15), and incorporates
it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service
of process. The court DENIES any and all pending motions as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
May 6, 2022

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3