Simmons v. Stilwell
Filing
14
ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING 9 Report and Recommendation; It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint Dkt. No. 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/14/2012. (mbro) Modified on 12/14/2012 to edit text (mbro).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Michael Derrick Simmons
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Robin B. Stillwell, Judge,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 6:11-cv-01615-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [Dkt. No. 9] filed on August 1, 2011, regarding Plaintiff Michael
Derrick Simmons’s (“Plaintiff”) claim of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 brought against Defendant, South Carolina Circuit Judge, Robin B. Stillwell
(“Defendant”). Specifically, Plaintiff requests this court to compel Defendant to issue an order
enforcing an alleged agreement between Plaintiff and the Solicitor’s office, which Plaintiff
understands is an acknowledgment by the State that he is being imprisoned illegally under a void
judgment. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has refused to comply with an Administrative
Order issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court mandating a prompt resolution of all posttrial matters no later than sixty (60) days within the filing of the motion. Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, is currently incarcerated at Tyger River Correctional Institution.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that this court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint. The Report sets forth in detail the procedural history, the relevant facts and the legal
standards on this matter, which the court incorporates 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 Court is
1
not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for
the final determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing
Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (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).
"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 timely file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of his right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court based on such a recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Adams v. South Carolina, 244 F. App'x 534, 535 (4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
[Dkt. No. 11]. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file
specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983).
2
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendant, a state circuit court
judge, is absolutely immune from the instant claims for damages. Plaintiff acknowledges that
judges are immune from suit for their judicial actions, but he objects to the notion that
Defendant’s role in this case—not enforcing Plaintiff’s alleged agreement with the Solicitor’s
office—was judicial in nature.
Plaintiff argues instead that Defendant’s decision was
administrative. Plaintiff relies on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Forrester v.
White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) for the proposition that a judge is not absolutely immune from
administrative actions. The action at issue in Forrester was a judge’s decision to fire a court
employee, which the Court held was truly an internal administrative matter. Id. at 229. Plaintiff
also cites law defining judicial acts as those involving the “performance of the function of
resolving disputes between parties or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.” Antoine v.
Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 433, 113 S. Ct. 2167, 2170, 124 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1993)
(quoting Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 500 (1991)). In this case, Defendant’s act or alleged
failure to act involves an alleged agreement between Plaintiff and the Solicitor’s office that
allegedly impacts Plaintiff’s rights vis-à-vis the State. As such, the failure to act for which
Plaintiff claims relief would unquestionably be characterized as judicial rather than
administrative. As a result, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that
Defendant is immune from suit.
Plaintiff also contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the relief sought
was in the nature of a writ of mandamus rather than injunctive relief. The court finds that the
Magistrate Judge properly characterized the relief sought and properly found that the United
States District Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant such relief.
3
Therefore, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. No. 9] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
December 14, 2012
Greenville, South Carolina
4
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?