From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crockett v. Waldrop

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 31, 2012
C/A No.: 0:12-1744-JFA-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2012)

Opinion

C/A No.: 0:12-1744-JFA-SVH

08-31-2012

Johnny Crockett, Plaintiff, v. Detective J. Waldrop; Amy Sikora, Solicitor, Defendants.


ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Johnny Crockett, brings this civil action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations by the defendants surrounding his arrest on state charges.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that defendant Amy Sikora, the prosecutor in plaintiff's criminal state court case, be dismissed from this action. The Magistrate Judge has authorized service of process on the remaining defendant. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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 the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On August 3, 2012, the plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation, which was filed on that same day, and advised of his right to file objections to the Report. The plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Magistrate Judge correctly opines that defendant Sikora should be dismissed from this action because prosecutors in South Carolina have absolute immunity for activities in or connected with judicial proceedings.

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference.

Accordingly, defendant Amy Sikora is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Clerk shall return this file to the Magistrate Judge for further processing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 31, 2012

Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Crockett v. Waldrop

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 31, 2012
C/A No.: 0:12-1744-JFA-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2012)
Case details for

Crockett v. Waldrop

Case Details

Full title:Johnny Crockett, Plaintiff, v. Detective J. Waldrop; Amy Sikora…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Aug 31, 2012

Citations

C/A No.: 0:12-1744-JFA-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2012)