Simmons v. Stilwell, No. 6:2011cv01615 - Document 14 (D.S.C. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING 9 Report and Recommendation; It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint Dkt. No. 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/14/2012. (mbro) Modified on 12/14/2012 to edit text (mbro).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Michael Derrick Simmons ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Robin B. Stillwell, Judge, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 6:11-cv-01615-JMC ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ( Report ) [Dkt. No. 9] filed on August 1, 2011, regarding Plaintiff Michael Derrick Simmons s ( Plaintiff ) claim of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought against Defendant, South Carolina Circuit Judge, Robin B. Stillwell ( Defendant ). Specifically, Plaintiff requests this court to compel Defendant to issue an order enforcing an alleged agreement between Plaintiff and the Solicitor s office, which Plaintiff understands is an acknowledgment by the State that he is being imprisoned illegally under a void judgment. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has refused to comply with an Administrative Order issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court mandating a prompt resolution of all posttrial matters no later than sixty (60) days within the filing of the motion. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is currently incarcerated at Tyger River Correctional Institution. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this court summarily dismiss Plaintiff s complaint. The Report sets forth in detail the procedural history, the relevant facts and the legal standards on this matter, which the court incorporates herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Court is 1 not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "In the absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to timely file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of his right to appeal the judgment of the District Court based on such a recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Adams v. South Carolina, 244 F. App'x 534, 535 (4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 11]. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation, 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). 2 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge s finding that Defendant, a state circuit court judge, is absolutely immune from the instant claims for damages. Plaintiff acknowledges that judges are immune from suit for their judicial actions, but he objects to the notion that Defendant s role in this case not enforcing Plaintiff s alleged agreement with the Solicitor s office was judicial in nature. Plaintiff argues instead that Defendant s decision was administrative. Plaintiff relies on the United States Supreme Court s decision in Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) for the proposition that a judge is not absolutely immune from administrative actions. The action at issue in Forrester was a judge s decision to fire a court employee, which the Court held was truly an internal administrative matter. Id. at 229. Plaintiff also cites law defining judicial acts as those involving the performance of the function of resolving disputes between parties or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 433, 113 S. Ct. 2167, 2170, 124 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1993) (quoting Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 500 (1991)). In this case, Defendant s act or alleged failure to act involves an alleged agreement between Plaintiff and the Solicitor s office that allegedly impacts Plaintiff s rights vis-à-vis the State. As such, the failure to act for which Plaintiff claims relief would unquestionably be characterized as judicial rather than administrative. As a result, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Defendant is immune from suit. Plaintiff also contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the relief sought was in the nature of a writ of mandamus rather than injunctive relief. The court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly characterized the relief sought and properly found that the United States District Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant such relief. 3 Therefore, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 9] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge December 14, 2012 Greenville, South Carolina 4

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.