Martin v. Byars et al

Filing 48

ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to all Defendants except Defendant Myecha Miley. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/5/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Henry W. Martin, Jr., #190394,
Plaintiff,

vs.
William R. Byars;
John R. Pate;
Arthur A. Jordan;
McKenndly Newton;
Robert E. Ward;
Jon Ozmint;
Dennis R. Patterson;
Daniel Murphy;
David M. Tatarsky;
Lt. J. Carujo;
Lt. J. Carter;
Robert Orr;
Lt. James Rump;
Captain E.J. Miller;
Dr. Thomas Bynse;
Lt. Varlease Black;
Cpl. L. Jenkins;
Cpt. Myecha Miley;
M. Hudson;
S. Singlaton, DHO;
Cpl. T Simpson;
Mr. McQueen;
P. Smith;
A. Hollman;
Helen Freeman;
Thomas Scott;
Cpt. E James;
Tanya A. Gee;
V. Claire Allen;
John C. Few;
Wayne C. McCabe;
Jill Beattie;
Jeannette Mack;
Francine Bauchman;
Patty Britt Posey;
James S. Sligh, Jr.;
Dr. Rowland;
Gregory S Line;
Charlotte Smith;
Ellen Goodwin;
Russell Rush;
Jim Crosby;
Susan S. Barden;
Virginia Crocker,

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

)
)

Civil Action No. 6:13-3516-TMC-KFM
ORDER

[Text begins on following page]

Plaintiff, Henry W. Martin, Jr., proceeding pro se, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against Defendants, William R. Byars et al, alleging that they deprived him of his constitutional
rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this case was
referred to a magistrate judge for all pre-trial proceedings. This case is now before the court on
the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the court to
summarily dismiss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012), all Defendants, except Defendant
Myecha Miley, without prejudice and without service. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff filed objections
to the Report, asserting that Defendants were not entitled to immunity.1

(ECF No. 27).

Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s objections, stating that the magistrate judge fully discussed
the immunity of Defendants. (ECF No. 30).

Defendants did not object to that portion of the

Report that did not recommend summary dismissal as to Defendant Myecha Miley. Id. Plaintiff
responded, reasserting that Defendants are not immune. (ECF No. 33). Accordingly, this matter
is now ripe for review.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In making that determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Then, the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge. See id.

1

The postmark on Plaintiff’s envelope is time stamped for April 28, 2014. (ECF No. 27). Objections to the Report
were due by April 10, 2014. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff personally dated his cover letter for April 7, 2014, and his
certificate of service is also personally dated for April 7, 2014. (ECF No. 27). The court gave Plaintiff the benefit
of the doubt and reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s objections.

The court has conducted the requisite de novo review of the record and, while Plaintiff’s
objections are lengthy and detailed, they mostly restate factual allegations and legal conclusions
raised in the original petition and fully addressed in briefing, and in the Report.
Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the clerks of court have
quasi-judicial immunity because, according to Plaintiff, the clerks of court were performing
ministerial functions rather than discretionary functions. (ECF No. 27, pp. 13-19). Plaintiff cites
Miller v. State, 659 S.E.2d 492 (2008), for this proposition. In Miller, the South Carolina
Supreme Court addressed the duties of a clerk of court with regard to petitions for habeas corpus,
and stated that a clerk of court performs only a ministerial function, not a discretionary function,
when carrying out a habeas petition. Id. at 493. Plaintiff further asserts that Section 6.2.4 of the
South Carolina Clerk of Court Manual also supports his ministerial duty argument. (ECF No.
17, p 17). Section 6.2.4 of the Manual is entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” and
governs habeas petitions. Clerk of Court Manual § 6.2.4 “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,”
available at http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/clerkOfCourtManual/.

Plaintiff has not filed a

petition for habeas corpus, but rather Plaintiff is asserting a Section 1983 claim against the
defendants. See (ECF No. 1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is without merit.
In sum, the court finds that the Report’s analysis is thorough and accurate and, therefore,
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein in its entirety. It is therefore ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Complaint is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process as to all Defendants except Defendant Myecha Miley. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
September 5, 2014

Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if applicable.