Simon v. Lee et al

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 20 . The Court DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/20/2015. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Simon Allen, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Special Agent Paul Lee, in his private
and official capacity; Special Agent
Earl Gilliam, in his private and official
capacity; RAC Scott Bailey, in his
private and official capacity;
Asst. U.S. Attorney William
J. Watkins, Jr., in his private and official
capacity; Probation Officer
Robert F. Woods, Jr., in his private
and official capacity; Courtroom
Deputy Pamela Brissey, in her private
and official capacity,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-504-RMG

ORDER

---------------------------)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 20) recommending that this Court summarily dismiss the case with
prejudice and without service of process. The Court hereby adopts the R&R in whole.
Plaintiff filed suit on February 5, 2015, alleging that Defendants acted wrongfully in their
handling of Plaintiff s federal criminal case. (Dkt. No.1). He requested to be "released
immediately" as well as money damages of one million dollars in compensation and two million
dollars in punitive damages with respect to each defendant. (Id)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court makes a de novo
determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made and may "accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Here, the Magistrate Judge has competently reviewed the facts
alleged by Plaintiff and the applicable law and determined that the complaint lacks an arguable
basis. The Court agrees. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 ("an in forma pauperis
complaint "is frivolous [under 28 § 1915(d) ] where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact"); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25 (1992).
Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on April 13 and 15,2015. (Dkt. Nos. 22, 24). The
first set of objections reiterate the claims made in the Complaint - that evidence presented at his
trial was fabricated, that the prosecutor should have prosecuted others besides Plaintiff, that the
state judge took too much time to hear his motion to rescind his guilty plea, and that his public
defender should have introduced exculpatory evidence. To the extent Petitioner fails to point to
a specific error in the R & R and simply makes conclusory objections, the Court need not
conduct a de novo review. Smith v. Washington Mut. Bank FA, 308 Fed.Appx. 707, 708 (4th Cir.
2009). The Court sees no alleged facts, either in the Complaint or in the objections, that would
support a cause of action by Plaintiff. The supplementary objections (Dkt. No. 24) consist of
disputes regarding Plaintiffs benefits he has received, or not received, from the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs, which is not related to his Complaint in this Court. The letter is also
addressed to the V A. (Id.)
The Court has reviewed the R&R, the full administrative record in this matter, the
relevant legal authorities, and Plaintiffs objections to the R&R. It hereby ADOPTS the R&R as
the order of the Court and DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice and without service of
process.

2

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
April 'Lv, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

3