Moore v. Office of the Attorney General et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 13 Report and Recommendation. Case is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/23/2017. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Darius Lamont Moore, #248459,
Office of the Attorney General;
Mr. Alan Wilson, Attorney General;
Jonathan B. Williams, Assistant Attorney )
General; Paula S. Magargle, Assistant
Attorney General; David Spencer,
Assistant Attorney General,
Case No 8:17-cv-752-RMG
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 13) recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action. For
the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court. This case is
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.
Darius Lamont Moore, a South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) inmate
incarcerated at Perry Correctional Institution, brings this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for Defendants’ alleged failure to provide him with full and
complete copies of various state court criminal records, which he says violated his constitutional
rights.1 He also seeks injunctive relief, asking this Court to order Defendants to expunge an
armed robbery indictment from his record. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.
The Court adopts the facts as outlined by the Magistrate in the R. & R. so does not repeat them in detail
here. (Dkt. No. 13 at 1-3.)
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the
development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, so his pleadings are considered
pursuant to this liberal standard. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal
claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none
exists. Weller v. Dep’t of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
The in forma pauperis statute authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is
satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or
malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and
“seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, even if Plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court is charged
with screening Plaintiff’s lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the Complaint if (1)
it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
For reasons thoroughly explained by the Magistrate Judge in the R. & R., this Court does
not have federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction over this action. (Dkt. No. 13 at 45.) Defendants also have Eleventh Amendment immunity from Plaintiff’s claims for monetary
damages because he seeks monetary damages from the South Carolina Office of the Attorney
General, a state agency. (Dkt. No. 13 at 6-7.)
This Court reviews de novo any part of the R. & R. to which there has been proper objection.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Although Plaintiff has filed objections to the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 15), he
has not specifically objected to the Magistrate’s findings. Plaintiff appears to have merely
restated the facts from his initial complaint. This Court’s review of the record indicates that the
R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of this case and the applicable law.
For the reasons stated above, this case is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance of service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Richard M. Gergel
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
May 23, 2017
Charleston, 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?