Sanders v. Wilson et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/24/2014. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Launeil Sanders,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Alan Wilson, South Carolina
)
)
Attorney General Authorized
Representative; Burts, Turner, and )
Rhodes, and its authorized insurance )
representative; Nikki Haley,
)
Governor of South Carolina and its )
)
authorized insurance agent or
representative; Janneth E. Sanders, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 7:14-cv-2914-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R &
R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald.1 Plaintiff Launeil Sanders, proceeding
pro se, filed this civil action on July 22, 2014, seeking damages and injunctive relief related to a
family law case filed against him in a South Carolina family court.2 The Magistrate Judge issued
his R & R on July 29, 2014, see R & R, ECF No. 10, and Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R &
R, see Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 12. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process due to Plaintiff’s

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge’s review of Plaintiff’s
complaint was conducted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The
Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints . . . [do] not
require . . . courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.”).
2
Because the allegations are adequately stated in the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, which the Court
adopts, the Court need not elaborate on them further.
1

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See generally ECF No. 10. The R & R
also recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See id. at 7.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The right to de novo review may be waived by the failure to file timely objections. Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court need not conduct a de novo review when a
party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific
error in the [M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, in the absence
of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). However, in the absence of
objections, the Court must “‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the action without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge reports that the Office of the Governor and Office of the
Attorney General of the State of South Carolina are immune from suit under the Eleventh
Amendment. See R & R, ECF No. 10 at 3–4. Moreover, the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine
is applicable to the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint, as he requests that this Court review a state

2

family court judgment. See R & R, ECF No. 10 at 4; see also D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments
of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). Next, the Magistrate Judge notes that the Defendant law
firm of Burts, Turner, and Rhodes and Defendant Janneth Sanders are also subject to summary
dismissal as they have not acted under color of state law. See ECF No. 10 at 4–5; see also Fleming
v. Asbill, 42 F.3d 886, 890 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Private lawyers do not act ‘under color of state law’
merely by making use of the state’s court system”); Brummett v. Camble, 946 F.2d 1178, 1184 (5th
Cir. 1991) (“[A] private person does not act under color of state law simply because [s]he invokes
state authority.”). The Magistrate Judge also explains that this Court does not have diversity
jurisdiction to consider any state law claims because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of South
Carolina. See ECF No. 10 at 5.
The Magistrate Judge then examined Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction, and determined that he failed to make the requisite showing on any of the
four criteria. See ECF No. 10 at 6–7; see also Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Counsel, 555 U.S.
7, 19–20 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”).
Moreover, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis should
be denied, as this action is frivolous. See ECF No. 10 at 7. Finally, the Magistrate Judge notes that
this is the third civil rights action filed against the Burts, Turner, and Rhodes law firm by Plaintiff
and the second against Attorney General Alan Wilson and Janneth Sanders of which were
dismissed. See Order, Sanders v. Wilson, No. 7:14-837-RBH-KFM (D.S.C. June 21, 2014); Order,
Sanders v. Burts Turner & Rhodes, No. 13-cv-02946 (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2014).

3

In his objections, Plaintiff does not specifically address the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, rehashing only the allegations of his complaint and making a generalized claim
that he is entitled to injunctive relief. The Court may only consider objections to the R & R that
direct it to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . .
situations 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 recommendation.” Orpiano, 687
F.2d at 47. Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, this Court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199. After
a review of the R & R in light of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds no clear error. Therefore, the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is proper, and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the complaint, the R & R,
objections to the R & R, and applicable law. For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate
Judge, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
November 24, 2014
4