Hamilton v. State of West Virginia

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court OVERRULES plaintiff's 16 Objections and CONFIRMS and ACCEPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn. Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff's 2 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; DENIES plaintiff's 14 MOTION for Injunctive Relief; DISMISSES plaintiff's 1 Complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 7/31/2017. (cc: plaintiff, pro se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CHARLES K. HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-03765

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

Introduction

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed
findings and recommendation (“PF&R”).

Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn

submitted his proposed findings and recommendation on March 29,
2017.

In that Proposed Findings and Recommendation, the

magistrate judge recommended that this court deny plaintiff’s
application to proceed without prepayment of fees, deny
plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint, and remove this matter from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the
parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in
which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
Findings and Recommendation.

The failure of any party to file

such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a
de novo review by this court.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363

(4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Moreover,

this court need not conduct a de novo review when a plaintiff
“makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings
and recommendations.”
Cir. 1982).

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th

Plaintiff filed objections to the Proposed Findings

and Recommendation on April 13, 2017.

Because petitioner filed

his objections timely, this court has conducted a de novo review
of the record as to those objections.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

(“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and
recommendations to which objection is made.”).
II.

Background

On April 20, 2016, plaintiff filed the instant complaint,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the State of West Virginia.
Specifically, Hamilton alleges that he was subjected to malicious
prosecution in the Circuit Court of Mineral County because the
former state’s attorney questioned plaintiff’s decision to plead
guilty and told plaintiff’s aunt and uncle “that he had no
evidence against [Hamilton].”

ECF No. 1 at pp. 4 and 8.

Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended dismissal of
plaintiff’s complaint for several reasons.

First, he noted that

plaintiff’s complaint was directed toward an improper defendant
because § 1983 claims must be directed at a “person.”

2

Second,

Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn noted that plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is
not cognizable pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
because his criminal conviction has not been invalidated.
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn also recommended that Hamilton’s
claims be dismissed on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.
Finally, he noted that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes
Hamilton’s indirect attempt to a appeal a state court decision to
this court.
Rather than address these obstacles to suit, Hamilton’s
objections read: “The reason the Plaintiff pursued the issue at
hand is because a Judge told the Plaintiff there is no excuse for
the ignorance of the law, so the Plaintiff questions the Court
what is the excuse for malicious prosecution.”

ECF No. 16.

Hamilton’s objections do not direct the court to a specific error
in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations and,
therefore, they are without merit.
III.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court hereby OVERRULES
plaintiff’s objections and CONFIRMS and ACCEPTS the factual and
legal analysis contained within the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation.

Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s

application to proceed without prepayment of fees; DENIES
plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, DISMISSES plaintiff’s

3

complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the
court’s docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to
plaintiff pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2017.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

4