Harrison v. NLN et al
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 16 the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/3/2017. (sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Eugene P. Harrison, a/kla Eugene
Paul Harrison, Sr.,
Jill Woodton, Manager;
Manager, Lender Loan,
Case No.: 9:17-cv-1302
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No . 16) recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint
without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. For the reasons set forth below, this
Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court. The Complaint is dismissed without
Background and Relevant Facts
Plaintiff Eugene P. Harrison is proceeding pro se . This is the seventeenth civil action he
has filed with this Court since 2001. (Dkt. No . 16 at 2.) The Magistrate Judge entered an order on
August 15, 2017, notifying Plaintiff that he failed to state a basis for jurisdiction, that it was
unclear what claim(s) he was asserting against the named Defendant(s), and that he failed to state
what relief he was requesting. (Dkt. No . 9.) Plaintiff was instructed to complete a "Complaint for
a Civil Case" form to correct these deficiencies. On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed his
Supplemental Complaint. (Dkt. No . 1-2.)
a. Pro Se Pleadings
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). 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. See Weller v. Dep 'tofSocial Services, 901F.2d387 (4th Cir. 1990).
b. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation
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. See Mathe ws v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court 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)(l).
Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "a district court need not conduct a de
nova review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants, who are private citizens, violated the law by, among
other actions, unlawfully entering his home and harassing him or his famil y by saying " hello"
and leaving a white envelope. The Magistrate Judge explained in the R . & R. why Plaintiffs
allegations fail to state a claim that this Court may consider under either its federal question or
diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 16 at 3-6.) Plaintiff has not filed any Objections to the R. & R.
This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts of
For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 16) as the order of
the Court. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court Judge
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?