Sanders v. City of Charleston et al, No. 2:2023cv04976 - Document 15 (D.S.C. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R (Dkt. No. 10). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 02/13/2024.(hcor, )

Download PDF

Sanders v. City of Charleston et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Chief Silver Sanders, Case No. 2:23-04976 Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND OPINION City of Charleston, The Probate Court, Defendants. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failing to bring the case into proper form. (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff filed a letter in response to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 14). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court and dismisses Plaintiff’s case. I. Background Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging that “[t]he City of Charleston ha[s] no right to order a[n] executive chief on his reservation.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5). For relief, Plaintiff requests “[a] court order not to harass Chief Silver at 12 Gordon St[.] and to keep the executive order of the Chief on this Reservation.” Id. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Complaint and issued a Proper Form Order, indicating to the Plaintiff that his case may be dismissed if he does not bring this case into proper form within the time permitted. (Dkt. No. 6). Plaintiff, however, failed to comply with the court’s Order and his Complaint remained deficient.1 The Magistrate Judge then issued an R & R The Court notes that, after the issuance of the Proper Form Order, Plaintiff made a filing with an unsigned statement stating “[t]hey don’t want bring the mail to my house[,}” a United States Postal Service Authorization to Hold Mail form that was partially completed by Bobby J. Sanders, and a letter to Bobby J. Sanders from the Social Security Administration dated November 26, 2023. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 9-1). The Court finds that these documents are not relevant to the case and do not respond to the Magistrate’s Proper Form Order. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com recommending the Court dismiss this case without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff wrote a letter in response to the R & R (Dkt. No. 14). The matter is now ripe for the Court’s review. II. Standard The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court that has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). 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)(1). This Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R Plaintiff specifically objects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Where Plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “a district court need not conduct a de novo 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). “Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.” Wilson v. S.C. Dept of Corr., No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG, 2015 WL 1124701, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015). See also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Plaintiff has not filed objections in this case and the R & R is reviewed for clear error. III.Discussion The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly addressed Plaintiff’s deficient complaint. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the Complaint failed to state a basis for federal court jurisdiction, failed to state a claim, and was not brought in the proper form. 2 The letter submitted by Plaintiff does not address any issues raised in the R & R and merely restates Plaintiff’s claim that Plaintiff “is still being harassed by the probate court.” (Dkt. No. 14). This is not a proper objection and is overruled. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R & R as the Order of the Court and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint. IV. Conclusion After a thorough review of the R & R and the record in this case, the Court finds that the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R & R (Dkt. No. 10). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. _s/Richard Mark Gergel_____ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge February 13, 2024 Charleston, South Carolina 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.