Wilson v. Cutter et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report 13 , and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 04/25/2017. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IRVIN JEFFERSON WILSON,
J.M. CUTLER, Police Officer, Greenville,
South Carolina, Law Enforcement Department; §
NICOB BALL, Signature Constable Law
§ Civil Action No.: 6:17-00499-MGL
Enforcement Officer, State of South Carolina, §
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; B.W., Alleged
Witness for the State; THE SOLICITOR’S
OFFICE, Prosecutor Assigned to Plaintiff’s
Charge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Greenville, §
South Carolina; STEWARD SARRATT,
Defense Lawyer, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
State of South Carolina,
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. This matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate
Judge suggesting the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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, however, “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that
do not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge’s] proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 29, 2017. ECF No. 13. On April 10,
2017, the Clerk of Court filed Plaintiff’s objections to the Report (Plaintiff’s Memorandum).
ECF No. 15. The Court has carefully considered the objections but holds them to be without
merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however,
required to “conjure up questions never squarely presented to them” or seek out arguments for a
party. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
When construed liberally and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s
Memorandum sets forth only one specific objection to the Report. Plaintiff appears to object to
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant B.W.
(B.W.) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Plaintiff fails to allege state action by B.W. for purposes
of § 1983. See ECF No. 15 at 4. Plaintiff appears to argue B.W. is a state actor because he is
employed by the State of South Carolina. See id. He also reasserts the allegations against B.W.
set forth in the Complaint. See id.
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation B.W. is employed by the State is insufficient to support a
claim against B.W. under § 1983.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges B.W. served as a
State witness, and Plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts in the Complaint or his Memorandum
to support a reasonable inference B.W.’s actions complained of by Plaintiff are fairly attributable
to the State. Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s suggestion Plaintiff’s
claims as a whole fail to satisfy the pleading standard of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8. See
ECF No. 13 at 6-7 n.2. Therefore, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff presents nothing in the remainder of his Memorandum to convince the Court the
Magistrate Judge erred in recommending the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
Apart from the objection discussed above, the
remainder of Plaintiff’s Memorandum consists of a restatement of the allegations in the
Complaint, conclusory assertions Plaintiff is objecting to various portions of the Report, and
requests for the Complaint to be served on Defendants; any meaningful counter to the wellreasoned conclusions in the Report is absent. In an overabundance of caution, however, the
Court has made a de novo review of the entire record. After having done so, the Court remains
convinced dismissing the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process is proper. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Report, the Court will overrule any
additional objections to the Report set forth in Plaintiff’s Memorandum.
After a thorough review of the Report, Plaintiff’s Memorandum, and the record in this
case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts
the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court the Complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 25th day of April 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from
the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?