Prozer v. United States of America

Filing 37

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss; denying 35 Motion "To Remove Electronic Recipients". Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/25/2015.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Michael Anthony Prozer, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
The United States of America,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9:14-3556-TMC

ORDER

Michael Anthony Prozer, III (“Prozer”), the plaintiff, brings this action against the United
States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq.
The United States filed a motion to dismiss (ECF 20), and Prozer responded to that motion (ECF
Nos. 23, 29). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C.,
this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. This case is now before the
court on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the
court to grant the motion for dismiss because of immunity. (ECF No. 33). Prozer filed timely
objections. (ECF No. 36). He has also filed a motion “to remove electronic recipients” from the
Bureau of Prisons. (ECF No. 35).
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, 27071 (1976). In making that determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Then, the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge. See id.

Prozer’s objections fail to address any specific, dispositive portion of the Report. The
objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report or merely restate
his claims. The court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Prozer’s objections and finds no
reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended disposition.
With regard to Prozer’s motion to remove electronic recipients (ECF No. 35), judicial
records and documents are generally open to the public. E.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). To file documents under seal, Prozer must file a motion pursuant to
Local Rule 5.03, D.S.C.

In any event, given that Prozer’s objections indicate that he is

voluntarily sharing the details of his case with various news organizations and internet blogs,
(ECF No. 36 at 2, 13), the court finds that Prozer waived any objection he may have had to the
public’s access to his case.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 33) and incorporates it herein. It is
therefore ORDERED that the United States’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED.
In addition, the court DENIES the motion to remove electronic recipients (ECF No. 35).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 25, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

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.