Reaves v. Medlin et al

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report, ECF No. 9 , is ACCEPTED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS. 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-01868-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Jason Medlin, Richmond County School
System, Daniel Hucko, Cordeo Doster,
Patrick Dean Blanchard, Richmond
County Sheriff’s Office, Georgia Bureau
of Investigation (GBI), Georgia
Applicant Processing Svc., GEMALTO/
THALES, Clayton County Public
Schools, Clarke County Public School
District, and Officer Sutton.

Order

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Kathy Reaves, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
action against the above-named Georgia residents and Georgia entities ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff brings her suit pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 4101, Article
IV, § 2, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution, the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and
apparently 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id at 1. The Court is familiar with the factual allegations
contained in Plaintiff’s complaint as Plaintiff has a number of pending actions and
recently dismissed actions before this Court largely regarding the same set of facts.
See 4:22-cv-00318-TLW; 4:22-cv-00639-TLW; 4:22-cv-00856-TLW; 3:22-cv-01399TLW; 3:22-cv-1323-TLW, etc.
Page 1 of 4

Plaintiff’s complaint was referred to the Honorable Thomas E. Rogers, III,
United States Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36b(b)(1)(B). The
magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which
directs the court to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as when the complaint seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Accordingly, the
magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), ECF No. 9,
recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and
without service of process.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation filed by the magistrate judge. In the Report, the magistrate judge
recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed because South
Carolina is an improper venue for Plaintiff to litigate claims against Georgia
individuals and entities that arose out of alleged actions that took place entirely in
Georgia. Id. 2–3. In support of this, the Report notes that Plaintiff has previously
attempted to bring claims against the same defendants in the Southern District of
Georgia. Id. at 3.
Additionally, the magistrate judge—out of an abundance of caution—
addresses Plaintiff’s claims on the merits and again recommends that Plaintiff’s
complaint be summarily dismissed. Id. at 3–9. Specifically, the magistrate judges
recommends dismissal because (1) Plaintiff is already pursuing claims against
defendants Hucko, Blanchard, and Sutton in other actions based on the same set of
Page 2 of 4

alleged facts; (2) generally, Plaintiff’s complaint is duplicative of actions already
pending before the Court, namely 4:22-cv-00318-TLW, and thus subject to summary
dismissal under § 1915 (3) there is no private right of action under § 4401; (4) Plaintiff
filed her complaint on June 13, 2022 for claims arose out of “a May 2019 incident”
which is well outside of Georgia’s applicable two year statute of limitations for a §
1983 claim; (5) Plaintiff has not alleged facts necessary to establish a claim for civil
conspiracy pursuant to § 1983; (6) defendants GBI, GAPS, and the Richmond County
Sherriff’s Office are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh
Amendment; (7) Plaintiff has failed to state against defendant Gemalto because it is
neither a state actor nor a person; (8) Plaintiff has failed to allege a claim pursuant
to the FRCA, and finally, (9) Plaintiff has failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment
due process claim against either the Clayton County Public Schools or the Clarke
County Public School District because she has not alleged the deprivation of a
protected liberty interest. Id. The magistrate judge ultimately noted that “[i]t is a
waste of judicial resources to request Plaintiff [to] name actual persons as defendants
instead of an agency as the court already did this in No. 4:22-cv-318 and Plaintiff is
pursuing some individual defendants, regarding this same incident in that court
action.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe
for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report 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.
Page 3 of 4

In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review,
but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 9, is ACCEPTED. This matter is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE
OF PROCESS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
November 17, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4