Gibson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON ECF No. 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the findings of the Magistrate Judge's Report (id.) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1 ) without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/15/2016. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG
Timothy Wayne Gibson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Social
)
Services; Jamie Posey , Case Worker,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-01890-JMC

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Timothy Wayne Gibson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a pro
se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 10), filed on May 29,
2015, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice. For
the reasons below, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 10) and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1).
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action against the South Carolina Department of Social
Services and Jamie Posey (“Defendants”) alleging the Greenville County Family Court (“Family
Court”) terminated his parental rights during his incarceration without notice or legal
representation. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) Plaintiff requested the court grant injunctive relief and order
Defendants to restore parental rights, reimburse all legal costs, and grant a new trial. (ECF No.
1.) Plaintiff filed timely Objections1 (ECF No. 12) on June 10, 2015, after the Magistrate Judge

ͳ

The court notes that Plaintiff has several Objections that are only specific to two portions of the
Report.
1

issued a Report recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice (ECF
No. 10).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight—the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Jurisdiction to Review Due Process Claim
First, Plaintiff objects and alleges that the South Carolina Court of Appeals (“Court of
Appeals”) has not issued a final ruling on a petition for rehearing or reinstatement. (ECF No. 12.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff argues the absence of a final decision from a state court authorizes the
court to review his § 1983 action for a violation of due process. (Id.)
However, the Report discloses the Court of Appeals filed a final decision as an
unpublished opinion. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) On December 30, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the Family Court order to terminate Plaintiff’s parental rights to his minor children. (Id.)
Consequently, this court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss because
a federal district court cannot review or set aside a state court ruling. (ECF No. 10 at 3-4 (citing

2

D.C. Ct. of Apps. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-82 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413, 416 (1923)).)
B. Denial of Due Process in Family Court
Additionally, Plaintiff objects and alleges he was not notified about the Family Court
preliminary proceedings and did not have legal representation, which Plaintiff claims is a
violation of the right to procedural due process. (ECF No. 12.) The court reviews Plaintiff’s
assertion that absence of legal representation violates his procedural due process rights because
he presents no evidence of inadequate notice.
Plaintiff argues “that the nature of the process due in parental rights termination
proceedings turn on a balancing of the three distinct factors . . .” (ECF No. 12 at 2 (quoting
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. Of Durham Cty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981)).) However, the
Supreme Court in Lassiter established that the Constitution does not compel an appointment of
counsel for indigent parents in all parental termination proceedings. Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 31.
Instead, the trial court decides whether due process calls for the appointment of counsel on a
case-by-case basis that is subject to appellate review. Id. at 32 (citing Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S.
261, 271 (1981)). This court concludes that in the aforementioned instance there is no violation
of Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned reasons and a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report (ECF No. 10), the court finds that the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts
and law. Therefore, this court ADOPTS the findings of the Magistrate Judge’s Report (id.) and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
June 15, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

4