Lancaster v. Ruane et al

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Plaintiff's 9 Motion for speedy trial and to halt the state prosecution charges is terminated as moot. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/23/17. (kmca)

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

Shannon Miles Lancaster,
Plaintiff,
v.

James Ruane,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 7:17-0021-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Shannon Miles Lancaster (“Lancaster”), an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 1, 2017, the magistrate judge filed a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) in which she recommended that this action be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance of process. (ECF No. 13). Lancaster timely filed
objections. (ECF No. 15). Lancaster has also file a motion for a speedy trial and to halt the
prosecution of his state charges. (ECF No. 9).
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 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 is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the magistrate
judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, 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). 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).
Briefly, Lancaster alleges Defendant James Ruane, a narcotics officer with the
Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office, entrapped him by making two controlled drug buys on
April 11, 2016, and April 15, 2016. (Compl. at 4). He also contends Ruane put Lancaster and his
family’s lives at risk if someone had recognized Ruane was an officer. Id. at 5. He also alleges
when he was arrested, he did not receive his Miranda warnings. Id. He is seeking the dismissal
of his pending charges, the setting of a bond, and punitive damages. (Compl. at 7).
In her Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the court dismiss this action without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process for several reasons. First, as to the false
arrest claim, the magistrate judge concludes that Lancaster fails to state a false arrest claim
because a grand jury indicted Lancaster. (Report at 4). Further, the magistrate concludes that the
complaint is barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (holding that federal courts should
not interfere with state criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and extraordinary of
circumstances), because Lancaster can raise his claims in state court. (Report at 5-6). Finally, the
magistrate judge recommends that Lancaster’s pending motion for a speedy trial and to halt the
state prosecution be terminated as moot. (Report at 6).
In his objections, Lancaster argues that the grand jury should not have indicted him
because Ruane entrapped him and he did not receive any Miranda warnings when he was
arrested. (Objections at 1). Lancaster merely restates his allegations and does not address the
recommendations in the Report. Therefore, after a thorough review of the Report and the record
in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the court finds Plaintiff Lancaster’s
objections are without merit and adopts the Report (ECF No. 13), and this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Further, Plaintiff’s pending
2

motion (ECF No. 9) is terminated as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 23, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3