Devlin v. Davis et al
ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Magistrate Judge Melanie Davis and the Pickens County Police Department are DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/23/16. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James L. Devlin,
Magistrate Judge Melanie Davis, Officer
Tye Nalley, Officer Noe Sudduth, and
Pickens Police Department,
Civil Action No. 8:16-1024-TMC-KFM
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this
matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Defendants Magistrate
Judge Melanie Davis and the Pickens Police Department be dismissed from Plaintiff’s action
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report. (ECF No. 20). Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for review.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71 (1976). 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 that
case, the court reviews the Report only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff’s objections are mostly unspecific to the dispositive portions of the Report. In
his objections, Plaintiff claims that Magistrate Judge Davis conspired with an officer during a
criminal proceeding to violate his constitutional rights even though she knew that he did not
violate any criminal laws. (ECF No. 20 at 1). The court finds that Plaintiff’s objections fail to
set forth any reason for overturning the well-reasoned recommendation of the magistrate judge.
As discussed by the magistrate judge, when judicial officials act within their capacity as judicial
officials, they are entitled to absolute immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991)
(stating that judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice”); Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (stating that absolute judicial “immunity applies even when the
judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”).
Instead of addressing the substantive portions of the Report, Plaintiff devotes much of his
objections to raising factual arguments concerning a non-party and new allegations he did not
raise in the complaint. In his objections, Plaintiff discusses an “officer B. Wimpey,” who
allegedly lied to Magistrate Judge Davis. (ECF No. 20 at 1). Plaintiff referenced officer B.
Wimpey in an attachment to his complaint, but he did not list this officer as a defendant. (ECF
No. 1-3 at 1). Furthermore, Plaintiff raises new allegations concerning the conditions of the
pretrial detention center in his objections.
Plaintiff did not raise these allegations in his
complaint. These new allegations do not address any specific error in the Report. No amended
pleadings have been filed, and “Plaintiff cannot use his objections to plead new facts not alleged
in his complaint.” Vanzant v. Carolina Ctr. for Occupational Health, No. 8:14-CV-03725-RBH,
2015 WL 5039302, at *4 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2015).
In sum, the court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections and finds
no reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended disposition.
objections are overruled. Based on the foregoing, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 14) and
incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Magistrate Judge Melanie
Davis and the Pickens County Police Department are DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
May 23, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?