Opinion
C/A No.: 3:14-1694-JFA-PJG
07-14-2014
Jeremy Wilson, Plaintiff, v. Fort Jackson, Defendant.
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Jeremy Wilson, originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and that court transferred the case to the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges state law claims of defamation, false arrest, and a violation of his constitutional rights.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the court should summarily dismiss this action without prejudice. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
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).
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on May 30, 2014. The plaintiff has not filed objections and the time within which to do so has 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 has evaluated the plaintiff's complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). The Magistrate Judge correctly notes that the plaintiff has failed to name a defendant amenable to suit in this case; that defendant Fort Jackson is entitled to summary dismissal as it is not a "person" amenable to suit under Bivens; and that the principle of sovereign immunity applies to the United States or its agencies who have not consented to this suit.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is proper and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2009). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). In the instant matter, the court finds that the petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
July 14, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina