Wright v. Time and Democrat, The et al
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 8 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/13/2017. (asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Christopher Dean Wright,
The Times and Democrat (Newspaper)
and Lee Publications (Lee Enterprises),
Civil Case No. 5:16-cv-03433-JMC
Pro Se Plaintiff Christopher Dean Wright, incarcerated at Orangeburg County Detention
Center, Orangeburg, South Carolina, filed this civil action against The Times and Democrat
Newspaper and Lee Publications (“Defendants”) claiming Defendants published a newspaper
article that injured his reputation. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff specifically alleges defamation,
slander, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress, related to an article published
in the September 29, 2016 issue. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on October28, 2016, ruled that
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) fails to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship or to claim
an amount in controversy that satisfies the requirement of 28 U.S.C § 1332(a). (ECF No. 8 at 4.)
The Magistrate Judge ruled that essential claims in the complaint are insufficient to show that the
case is “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Id. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s contentions do not assert
Defendants violated a federal statute or constitutional provision. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to
assert claims for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he did not allege that
the violations were committed under the color of state law. Id. The Report and Recommendation
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. 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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 8 at 6.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In
the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results
in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
(ECF No. 16.) It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Certificate of Appealability
The law governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue… only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability… shall indicate which specific issue or issues
satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of
appealability has not been met.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
April 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?