We the People v. Strickland et al

Filing 42

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 37 . The Court overrules Plaintiffs Objection and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court further denies Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (ECF No. 37). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/7/2016. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
We the People,

Civil Action No.: 6:15-cv-00698-BHH
Plaintiff,
vs.
Opinion and Order

Andy Strickland, Jodie Taylor, Matthew
Walker, David Matthew, Colleton County
Sheriff’s Officer,

Defendants.

Twenty-four prisoners at the Colleton County Detention Center, proceeding pro
se, initiated this civil rights action on behalf of the unincorporated association “We the
People.”1

We the People (“Plaintiff”) alleges various violations of its constitutional

rights against Defendants Andy Strickland, Jodie Taylor, Matthew Walker, David
Matthew, and Colleton County Sheriff’s Officer. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within action was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, for pretrial handling and a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”). Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends that the
Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. (Report 2, ECF No. 35.) The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the Court
incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging violations of its First, Fifth,
Sixth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) On April 6,
2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report. On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed its

1

This unincorporated association is not affiliated with various other organizations that use the name,
“We the People.”

1

Objection, (ECF No. 36), as well as a Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint (ECF
No. 37). The Objection and Motion to Amend are identical, explaining that Plaintiff
wishes to “pursue a class action lawsuit,” but “realize[s] that it was done not in the right
form.” (ECF Nos. 36 and 37.) Plaintiff asks to “[a]mend this Complaint to hopefully
correct this matter.” (Id.) Upon review, the Court finds the Objection and Motion to
Amend to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of a specific
objection. In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and the record and
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this pro se class action may not proceed.

2

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has found that “[i]t is plain error for a pro se inmate to
represent other inmates in a class action.” Fowler v. Lee, 18 F. App’x 164, 165 (4th Cir.
2001) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975)); see also
Duckett v. Fuller, No. 6:13-cv-01079, 2013 WL 6181417, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2013)
(dismissing the plaintiff inmates’ pro se class action and instructing the Clerk of Court
“to assign separate, individual civil action numbers to each of the co-[p]laintiffs”).
However, as noted in the Report, twenty-two of the prisoners who comprised We the
People have now filed their own individual civil rights cases.

(ECF No. 35 at 2.)

Therefore, the merits of the claims in this matter will still be tested.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled, and the Court accepts the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report in full.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules
Plaintiff’s Objection and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation. The Court further denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
(ECF No. 37). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 7, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina

3