Reaves v. Crews

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS ORDERED that the Report, ECF No. 11 , is ACCEPTED, and the Objections to the Report, ECF No. 13 , are OVERRULED. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 11/17/2022. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kathy Reaves, a/k/a Kathy Juanita
Reaves,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00856-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.

Order

Kathryn M. Crews,
DEFENDANT
Plaintiff Kathy Reaves, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action for
alleged employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and alleged violations of her Fourteenth Amendment Rights. ECF No. 1.
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E.
Rogers, III, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
After Plaintiff filed her complaint, the magistrate judge issued a proper form
order advising Plaintiff to amend her complaint because it was subject to summary
dismissal as filed. ECF No. 6. Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that
Plaintiff’s filed complaint had failed to state a claim because (1) It was unclear
from the complaint who the defendants were; (2) Plaintiff failed to allege that she
had received the necessary right to sue letter from the EEOC enabling her to bring
an action pursuant to Title VII claim; (3) Plaintiff cannot sue individual defendants
under Title VII; (3) Plaintiff is currently suing the named defendant, Kathryn
Page 1 of 3

Crews, in two other federal actions; (4) Plaintiff currently has 3 federal suits
involving the same set of facts; (5) Plaintiff’s complaint failed to plausibly allege a
Privacy Act claim; (6) Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a Fair Credit Reporting
Act claim; (7) there is no private, civil right of action under the criminal statutes
cited in Plaintiff’s complaint; (8) Plaintiff’s complaint claims under “venue” that
this is a removal action and a plaintiff cannot remove a case; (9) Plaintiff’s
complaint failed to allege facts to state a claim for racial discrimination, and (10)
Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a Fourteenth Amendment claim because she
has not alleged deprivation of a liberty interest. Id. Despite the proper form order,
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Report recommends
that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. ECF No. 11.
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report on September 29, 2022, ECF No. 13.
This matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting its review,
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
Page 2 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. Housing Auth. of the 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 the
Report, the objections, and relevant filings. After careful consideration, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiff’s objections offer no showing, either factually or legally,
that the Report should be rejected. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Report,
ECF No. 11, is ACCEPTED, and the Objections to the Report, ECF No. 13, are
OVERRULED. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No.
1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Senior United States District Judge
November 17, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3