Houston v. Duckett et al

Filing 36

ORDER RULING ON 31 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Report and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Timothy M Cain on 3/7/25. (agig)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Joseph L. Houston,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Brad Duckett, Andrew Lyons,
)
Heather Kelly, and
)
Cody Painter,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________)

Civil Action No. 7:23-cv-03196-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph L. Houston, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff
was a pretrial detainee at the Cherokee County Detention Center. See id. at 1 (showing Plaintiff
was presently detained at the detention center in Gaffney, South Carolina). In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a
magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. On July 26, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an
order addressing several deficiencies in Plaintiff’s proposed service documents and giving Plaintiff
an additional twenty-one days to cure the deficiencies. (ECF No. 5). The order warned Plaintiff
that failure to bring the case into proper form as described in the order could result in his case
being dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff returned a document in response to the July 26, 2023 order. (ECF No. 11). On
September 5, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a second order addressing remaining deficiencies
in Plaintiff’s proposed service documents. (ECF No. 15). The magistrate judge gave Plaintiff ten
days to cure the deficiencies. Id. at 2. Plaintiff again returned several documents in response. (ECF
Nos. 19, 22). However, on September 29, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a “Third and Final
1

Proper Form Order” indicating that Plaintiff had still failed to sign and date his service documents
as instructed and giving Plaintiff an additional ten days to cure the deficiencies noted. (ECF No.
24). Plaintiff returned additional service documents in response. (ECF No. 26). Though Plaintiff
did date the service documents, he did not sign them as instructed. See (ECF No. 26-1 at 1–4)
(showing signature line as blank).
Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the court dismiss this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and
without issuance and service of process pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (ECF No. 31). In the alternative, the Report indicates the Complaint is subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. at 8. The Report notified Plaintiff of his right to file specific
objections to the Report, id. at 9, and Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report, (ECF No. 33).
Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff contends he was falsely arrested and that the named
defendants violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1 at 3). As the factual basis
for these claims, Plaintiff simply attached the police report from the incident, (ECF No. 1-1), and
directed the court to “see attached statements by defendants[.]”Id. at 4. He contends that
“Defendants used guns and had no body cameras on while falsely arresting” him and that he was
“never seen by medical but was beaten by Defendants that had no body cameras” and “sustained
injuries all over [his] body.” Id. at 3–5. The police report, which Plaintiff attached to his Complaint,
indicates that Plaintiff was arrested following a “high speed chase” involving a stolen U Haul
truck, wherein officers stopped the truck using spike strips and then arrested Plaintiff, who was
driving the truck, “without incident.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 1–3). Four of the officers provided an

2

“Affidavit for Failure to Produce Body Camera Footage.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 4–7). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages for his alleged injuries. (ECF No. 1 at 5).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The recommendations set forth in the Report have no presumptive weight, and this court
remains responsible for making a final determination in this matter. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th
454, 459 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing 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 a specific
objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, 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). Thus, “[t]o trigger de novo review, an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or
recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court
of the true ground for the objection.’” Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (quoting United States v. Midgette,
478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). However, the court need only review for clear error “those
portions which are not objected to—including those portions to which only ‘general and
conclusory’ objections have been made[.]” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, 288 F.
Supp. 3d 654, 662 (D.S.C. 2017); see also Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (noting that “[i]f a litigant objects
only generally, the district court reviews the magistrate’s recommendation for clear error only”).
Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the Report, the court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Greenspan v. Bros. Prop.
Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200
(4th Cir. 1983)).
Additionally, since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this court is charged with construing his
pleadings and filings liberally in order to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious

3

case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir.
2017) (noting that “when confronted with the objection of a pro se litigant, [the court] must also
be mindful of [its] responsibility to construe pro se filings liberally”). Accordingly, “when
reviewing pro se objections to a magistrate’s recommendation, district courts must review de novo
any articulated grounds to which the litigant appears to take issue.” Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460–61.
This does not mean, however, that the court can ignore a pro se party’s failure to allege or prove
facts that establish a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. See Stratton v.
Mecklenburg Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 521 Fed. App’x 278, 290 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that
“‘district judges are not mind readers,’ and the principle of liberal construction does not require
them to ‘conjure up questions never presented to them or to construct full-blown claims from
sentence fragments’” (quoting Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277–78 (4th Cir.
1985))).
DISCUSSION
As noted by the magistrate judge in his Report, it is well established that a court has the
authority to dismiss a case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
prosecute or failure to comply with orders of the court. See, e.g., Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d
606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). In
considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court should consider four
factors:
(1) the degree of personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff;
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay;
(3) the [plaintiff’s history of] proceeding in a dilatory fashion; and,
(4) the effectiveness of sanctions less drastic than dismissal.
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir.1978) (quoting McCargo v. Hedrick, 545 F.2d 393,
396 (4th Cir. 1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted). These four factors “‘are not a rigid four-

4

pronged test’” and whether to dismiss depends on the particular circumstances of the case.
Attkisson, 925 F.3d at 625 (quoting Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)).
The magistrate judge determined that in this case, the Rule 41(b) factors weigh in favor of
dismissal. (ECF No. 31 at 5). Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that despite several
opportunities, Plaintiff has failed to bring his case into proper form. Id. He indicated that “despite
being provided instructions on how to complete a proposed summons and Forms USM 285 to
allow the United States Marshal Service to effectuate service on the defendants (if authorized), the
plaintiff ignored those instructions on three occasions and did not submit completed service
documents for any of the defendants.” Id. As noted by the magistrate judge, by not returning the
completed forms, Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s orders at docket entries 5, 15, and 24.
Id. Each of those orders warned Plaintiff that failure to comply could result in dismissal of his
case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF Nos. 5 at 2; 15 at 1; 24 at 1). As Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, he is personally responsible for his failure to comply with the proper form orders.
In the alternative, the magistrate judge indicated that the Complaint is subject to dismissal
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 31 at 6–8). The magistrate
judge indicated that the “[C]omplaint contains few allegations” beyond simply attaching the police
report associated with Plaintiff’s arrest. Id. at 6. He further noted that besides the police report,
“[D]efendants do not appear in the [P]laintiff’s [C]omplaint beyond the caption and being named
as [D]efendants” and it is “unclear in what capacity these [D]efendants were involved in the
[P]laintiff’s alleged constitutional deprivations.” Id. at 6. Finally, as to any claim of false arrest,
the magistrate judge observed that a state grand jury returned indictments related to the challenged
arrest, and these indictments “act as a bar to the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment false arrest claim.”
Id. at 8.

5

In his objections, Plaintiff generally objects to his case being dismissed for failure to bring
the case into proper form “while in the process of seeking private counsel to pick up this case.” 1
(ECF No. 33). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s objections include several requests to amend his Complaint.
In particular, Plaintiff requests to add additional parties, assert additional damages, and provide
documents he says were “missing out of this Complaint.” (ECF No. 33). He also attempts to clarify
that he is suing the officers in their official capacities. Id. at 1.
However, nowhere in his objections does Plaintiff explain his failure to comply with the
court’s prior orders, nor does he request an additional extension in which to do so. To date, over a
year after Plaintiff was warned it was his final chance to comply, Plaintiff still has not provided
the court with signed, dated service forms as instructed. Plaintiff has now had ample opportunity
to cure his deficiencies, using the detailed instructions provided by the court in each of the three
proper form orders, and he has failed to do so. Because Plaintiff has still not complied with the
court’s orders, his case is subject to dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 2 To the extent
Plaintiff objects to such dismissal, his objections are overruled.
1

Notably, no such private counsel has appeared in this case, despite some time having passed.

2

In the alternative, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff’s case is subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim. Though Plaintiff proposes various amendments to his
Complaint within his objections, these proposed amendments do not cure all the deficiencies noted
in the Report. Plaintiff has still failed to provide any factual allegations linking any Defendant to
the alleged harms, and he continues to rely almost entirely on the police report to describe the
factual basis for his claims. While he contends that the officers assaulted him and “used their
guns,” he does not describe which officers assaulted him, how the assault took place, what injuries
he sustained, or any other link between the officers and the alleged violations of his constitutional
rights. As for false arrest, Plaintiff’s objections attempt to explain why he believes that legally he
cannot be found guilty of his criminal charges in state court. (ECF No. 33 at 2–3). However, the
court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s state prosecutions and notes that on March 21, 2024, he
pled guilty to one of the two indictments that arose from the facts stated in the police report
attached to his complaint. See Cherokee County Seventh Judicial Circuit Public Index, Search
“First
Name:
Joseph,
Last
Name:
Houston”,
https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Cherokee/PublicIndex/CaseDetails.aspx?County=11&CourtAge
ncy=11001&Casenum=2022A1110200263&CaseType=C&HKey=11110788113718973481148
6

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 31) and incorporates it
herein by reference. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and
without issuance and service of process pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his last known address provided
to the court. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina
March 7, 2025

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.

465761165012111753795310186777874105664310057122579954121829711248101104555365
(last visited March 3, 2025). Accordingly, as Plaintiff’s proposed amendments would not cure the
deficiencies noted in the Report, to the extent Plaintiff’s objections could be liberally construed as
a motion to amend his Complaint, the court denies such request.
3

Plaintiff has provided no update on his address since fall of 2023, prior to the close of his state
court proceedings. However, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court informed of any
updates to his address, as Plaintiff has been warned in all three proper form orders. (ECF Nos. 5,
15, 24). The Cherokee County Detention Center is the only address the court has on file for
Plaintiff, as that is all that has been provided.
7