You're viewing Docket Item 12 from the case Peterson v. Mueller. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




7:13-cv-02155-GRA Date Filed 10/21/13 Entry Number 12 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

SPARTANBURG DIVISION


Robbie Wayne Peterson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Steve Mueller, Sheriff of Cherokee
County,


________________________________

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)




C/A No.: 7:13-cv-02155-GRA






ORDER

(Written Opinion)



This matter comes before this Court for review of United States Magistrate

Judge Paige J. Gossett’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, and filed on September

19, 2013. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff Robbie Wayne Peterson (“Plaintiff”), an inmate with

the South Carolina Department of Corrections at the Tyger River Correctional

Institution proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on August 6, 2013.1 ECF No. 1. Under established procedure in this

judicial district, Magistrate Judge Gossett made a careful review of the pro se

complaint and now recommends that this Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. ECF No. 9.

Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. For

the

reasons discussed herein,

this Court adopts

the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation in its entirety and summarily dismisses this case.

                                                            
1 A pro se prisoner’s petition is deemed filed at the time that it is delivered to the prison mailroom to be
forwarded to the district court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). In the current case,
the envelope containing Plaintiff’s complaint was stamped as delivered to the mailroom on August 6,
2013.

 

Page 1 of 5

7:13-cv-02155-GRA Date Filed 10/21/13 Entry Number 12 Page 2 of 5

Standard of Review



Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se

pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those

drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This

Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow

for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.

364, 365 (1982). However, a district court may not construct the plaintiff's legal

arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1993), nor is a district

court required to recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most

concerted efforts to unravel them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,

1277 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).



Plaintiff brings this claim in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which

permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying

the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. See ECF No. 8. To protect

against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a district court to

dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Background



Plaintiff’s complaint arises out of an arrest by the Cherokee County Sheriff’s

Department on August 22, 2011, for the offense of criminal sexual conduct. ECF No.

1. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that no evidence of this crime existed, the Sheriff’s

Department “failed to conduct an independent investigation,” and the Sheriff’s

 

Page 2 of 5

7:13-cv-02155-GRA Date Filed 10/21/13 Entry Number 12 Page 3 of 5

Department failed to properly obtain a warrant before arresting Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff

states that after “four months” of imprisonment, the charges against him were

dismissed on November 18, 2011. Id. Plaintiff asserts that information regarding his

arrest was “posted in the newspaper and in the media.” Id. Plaintiff raises claims of

“false imprisonment, false arrest, deprivation of liberty, and damages to reputation.”

Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief including punitive damages, court costs, and

attorney fees. Id.

Discussion



The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final

determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71

(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions

of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this

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)(1). This Court

may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge

with instructions." Id.

In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the

objections must be timely filed and must specifically identify the portions of the Report

and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir.

1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have .

. . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes

 

Page 3 of 5

7:13-cv-02155-GRA Date Filed 10/21/13 Entry Number 12 Page 4 of 5

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 the absence of specific objections to the Report and

Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the

recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

The failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any

further right to appeal when the parties have been warned that they must object to

preserve appellate review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); see also

Carter v. Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). In the present

case, Plaintiff received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, which contained a

“Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.” ECF No. 9. The

Notice warned that “[f]ailure to timely file specific written objections . . . [results] in

waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such

Recommendation.” Id. October 7, 2013 was the deadline for filing objections. See

ECF No. 9. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.

Conclusion



After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.



IT

IS THEREFORE ORDERED

that Plaintiff’s complaint

is summarily

dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Page 4 of 5

7:13-cv-02155-GRA Date Filed 10/21/13 Entry Number 12 Page 5 of 5











October 21 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina









 

Page 5 of 5