(“In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-32 [] (1976), the Supreme Court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages liability when they act as advocates for the State.”); Washington v. Wilson, 697 Fed.Appx. 241, 243 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam); see also Bardes v. Magera, No. 2:08-CV-487-PMD-RSC, 2009 WL 3163547, at *11 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2009) (finding child-support prosecutor immune from suit), aff'd, 403 Fed.Appx. 862 (4th Cir. 2010).
A policy is a formal statement by the private corporation. See Bardes v. Magera, C. A. No. 2:08-CV-487-PMD-RSC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91356, 2009 WL 3163547, at *30 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2009) (citing Gates v. Unified School Dist. No. 449 of Leavenworth County, Kan., 996 F.2d 1035, 1041 (10th Cir. 1993)). Arnette v. Armor Corr. Health Servs
That case was partially dismissed at the outset, with other claims against a sheriff dismissed on summary judgment. See, e.g., Bardes v. Magera, 2:08-CV-487-PMD-RSC, 2009 WL 3163547 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2009) (dismissal of all claims against all defendants except sheriff); Bardes v. Cannon, Jr., 2:08-CV-487-PMD-RSC, 2010 WL 3169614 (D.S.C. Aug. 9, 2010) (adopting R&R and granting summary judgment on claims that sheriff was vicariously liable for subjecting to cold cell torture); see also id. at 2010 WL 3169832 (D.S.C. June 18, 2010) (R&R). Plaintiff filed a second federal lawsuit in South Carolina in 2010, which case was dismissed based upon principles of res judicata.
The claims arise out of child support proceedings involving Plaintiff in South Carolina family court. After reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court dismiss the complaint because Plaintiff presents substantially the same issues this court already adjudicated and dismissed against these Defendants in Bardes v. Magera, No. 08-CV-487, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91441 (D.S.C. September 30, 2009), and because the court does not have jurisdiction over the claims. Plaintiff filed timely objections, arguing that "[t]his current case is uniquely different from Bardes [v.] Magera et. al. in that this new case delves into the discrimination issues by the State and the resulting loss of Eleventh Amendment immunity.