Reaves v. Warner et al

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report, ECF No. 8 , 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,

Case No. 4:22-cv-02650-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
P.F.C. Jason Thomas Warner, Lt.
Michael Joseph Hartson, and Mullins
Police Employee #1,

Order

DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Kathy Reaves, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
action on behalf of her adult son, Seth Reaves, against the above-named defendants.
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the apparent May 6, 2022 theft of Seth
Reaves’ vehicle by Plaintiff’s other adult son, Dmitri Reaves. ECF No. 1–1. Plaintiff
purports to bring her suit pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”), 15
U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552; the “Invasion
of Privacy Act”, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 1 at ¶1.
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. 1 Accordingly, the

The magistrate judge took this step because Plaintiff has filed a number of frivolous actions in this
Court. ECF No. 1 at 2.
1

Page 1 of 3

magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), ECF No. 8,
recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’’ complaint with prejudice and
without service of process.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report filed by the
magistrate judge. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s
complaint be summarily dismissed because (1) Plaintiff does not have standing to
bring claims on behalf of her adult son because she has not suffered an injury; (2)
“hefty portions of Plaintiff’s complaint [are] frivolous”, and (3) Plaintiff’s complaint
“espouses factually irrelevant information about Defendants wholly unrelated to the
May 2022 incident with her sons.” Id. at 2—5. The magistrate judge concludes that
“Plaintiff’s frivolous filings are nearing a waste of limited judicial resources” and
“bordering on abuse of the court’s process.” Id. at 5. 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.
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

Page 2 of 3

committee’s note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 8, 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 3 of 3