Baccus v. Marchant et al

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. All pending motions are denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/1/14. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

John Roosevelt Baccus,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bristow Marchant and David C. Norton,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 8:13-3439-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, John Baccus, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department
of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the
defendants, United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and United States District
Judge David C. Norton, have engaged in wrongful conduct and fraud upon the court in
another one of plaintiff’s cases, C/A No. 9:13-2309-DCN-BM (D.S.C.).

He seeks

compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $3 trillion dollars against the defendants
and his immediate release from SCDC custody.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the § 1983 action should be summarily dismissed. The

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. While the
plaintiff’s objections are enumerated in his 81-page objection memorandum, they provide
no basis for this court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition and
are repetitive of the claims in plaintiff’s complaint. As such, they are overruled.
The Magistrate Judge correctly opines that a judicial officer in the performance of his
or her duties has absolute immunity from suit. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 2 (1991). The
Magistrate Judge also opines that the alleged acts of Judge Norton and Magistrate Judge
Marchant were judicial acts performed in a judicial capacity and no exception to the doctrine
of absolute judicial immunity is applicable to this case. This court agrees.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation proper and incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
All pending motions are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

April 1, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2