Baker v. Federal Election Commission et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 25 Report and Recommendation, denied as moot 13 Motion for Relief pursuant to Rule 50(c) filed by Jacob Baker. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 7/31/17. (alew, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Federal Election Commission,
Greenville, S.C. Court of Common Pleas,
Civil Action No. 6:16-03522-JMC
This matter is before the court pursuant to Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin’s Report
and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 25.)
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint with this court against the captioned
Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that that he should have had the job of President of the
United States for two terms, that he should have been able to attend the presidential debates, and
requests $900,000.00. (ECF No. 1.)
On January 19th, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin filed her Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 25), recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
The Magistrate Judge informed the parties of their right to object and Plaintiff filed
timely objections on February 6, 2017. (ECF No. 27.)
1 of 3
II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and his complaint is afforded liberal construction so as to give
him an opportunity to have a claim stated where his alleged facts would merit one. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2014) (per curiam). A pro se complaint, regardless of how inartfully
pled, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 111 (1976). The court should analyze a complaint under the assumption
that all of the allegations are true. Bell AtlanticCorp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Therefore, if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which a
plaintiff could prevail, it should do so.
However, the requirement for liberal construction does not allow a court to ignore a clear
failure to allege facts that set forth a valid claim currently cognizable in a federal district court.
Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report 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, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a
final determination remains with this court. See 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 to which specific objections are made.
Here, The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for
failure to comply with this court’s Proper Form Order entered on November 7, 2016, by failing
to submit proposed service documents. Upon the court’s review of Plaintiff’s objection there has
not been any specific objections made to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 25 & 27.) Plaintiff’s objections are letters that simply restate portions of various
2 of 3
Supreme Court rules, United States Code Annotated sections, sections from the American
Jurisprudence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without specifically addressing the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 27 at 1-5.)
Plaintiff has therefore failed to make objections sufficiently specific to his defects under
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and therefore does not warrant de novo
review of this case pursuant to Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is
only entitled to clear error review under Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. 416 F.3d
310, 314. Here, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation contains no clear error.
For the foregoing reasons the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED (ECF No. 25), Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process (ECF No. 1), and Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Relief pursuant
to Rule 50(c) is DENIED AS MOOT. (ECF No. 13.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
July 31, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
3 of 3
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?