Reaves et al v. Mullins Police Department 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 and Dmitri Reaves,

Case No. 4:22-cv-03181-TLW

PLAINTIFFS
v.
Mullins Police Department, City of
Mullins, Marion County Sheriff’s Office,
and County of Marion,

Order

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs Kathy and Dmitri Reaves (collectively “Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action against the Mullins Police Department,
the City of Mullins the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, and the County of Marion for
claims of (1) Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation, (2) Municipal and
Supervisory Liability, (3) Malicious Prosecution, (4) Negligent Hiring and Retention,
and (5) Respondeat Superior. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the August
2022 arrest of Plaintiff Dimitri Reaves on Grant Larceny. Id. Plaintiffs purport to
bring their suit pursuant to 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
Plaintiffs’ 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 Plaintiffs’ 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
Page 1 of 3

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 1 Accordingly, the
magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), ECF No. 8,
recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ 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 Plaintiffs’
complaint be summarily dismissed because (1) Plaintiff Kathy Reaves does not have
standing to bring this action since her son’s arrest as a result of a warrant is not an
injury to her, and (2) because Plaintiff Dmitri Reaves has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Id. at 2–7. Specifically, the Report found that Plaintiffs’
complaint had failed to state a claim for relief as relates to Plaintiff Dmitri Reaves
because (1) the Mullins Police Department is not a person and thus cannot be a
defendant in a § 1983 action; (2) the complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim under a
theory of municipal liability; (3) Marion County and the Marion County Sherriff’s
Office are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment; (4)
the complaint has failed to allege a false arrest claim pursuant to § 1983 because
there is a facially valid warrant and a public official cannot be charged with false
arrest when he arrests a defendant pursuant to a facially valid warrant; (5) the
complaint fails to state a claim for malicious prosecution, and(6) the complaint fails

The magistrate judge took this step because Plaintiff Kathy Reaves is a frequent frivolous filer and
currently has a number of pending actions before this Court. See 4:22-cv-00318-TLW; 4:22-cv-00639TLW; 4:22-cv-00856-TLW; 3:22-cv-01399-TLW; 3:22-cv-1323-TLW, etc.
1

Page 2 of 3

to state a claim pursuant to the FRCA. Id. Plaintiffs 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
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