Campbell v. Hill et al
ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and terminating as moot 19 Motion for Update on Case and 21 Motion for Hearing filed by Robert B Campbell. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 4/13/2015. (gmil)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert B. Campbell,
) Civil Action No.: 6:14-3731-MGL
D. Garrison Hill, Judge; Karen C.
Ratigan, Att. Gen. Ass.,
On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Robert B. Campbell, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for review pursuant to the procedural
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A . On October 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge prepared
a thorough Report and Recommendation, (“the Report”), recommending that this action be
summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, as Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to set out plausible claims for which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff
filed an Objection to the Report on October 16, 2014. (ECF No. 13). The matter is now ripe for
review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
Plaintiff’s Objection. The Court has undertaken a de novo review, even though Plaintiff’s filing does
not advance specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Instead, Plaintiff’s “Objection”
amounts to a restatement of his claim of perceived collusion between the state court judge and state
court prosecutor who participated in Plaintiff’s PCR hearing. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff does not even
meaningfully address the Magistrate Judge’s central determination that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to
set out plausible claims for money damages, given the broad immunity enjoyed by judicial officers
For these reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and adopts
the Report and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 10). Accordingly, the action is
DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
subsequently-filed Motion for Update on Case, (ECF No. 19), and Motion for Hearing, (ECF No.
21), are properly terminated as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
April 13, 2015
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?