The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Justin D. Brown, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-5573-JD
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER AND OPINION
Karen W. Barker, Assistant Public )
Defender, Stephanie B. Liner, Solicitor, )
)
Defendants. )
)
This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1 (DE 11.) Plaintiff Justin D. Brown
(“Plaintiff” or “Brown”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging Defendant Karen W. Barker, Assistant/Public Defender (“Barker”) violated his
constitutional rights in her representation of Plaintiff.2 (DE 1.) Plaintiff is seeking damages and
to have his charges dismissed.
Generally, Plaintiff alleges that he and Barker disagree on how Barker should represent
Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Barker refuses to file motions that Plaintiff demands she file or to
make arguments to the court that Plaintiff believes she should make. Plaintiff also alleges that
1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(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. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2 Plaintiff also alleges that Barker’s representation of him is a conflict of interest because Barker was
a bridesmaid in the wedding of the solicitor who is prosecuting him, Defendant Stephanie B. Linder
(“Linder”). There are no other substantive allegations against Linder, and therefore, Plaintiff fails to state
a claim against Linder upon which relief can be granted.
Barker’s representation of him is a conflict of interest because Barker was a bridesmaid for Linder.
Plaintiff alleges he has attempted to fire Barker, but the state trial court will not appoint a different
lawyer to represent him. ( DE 1.) Plaintiff claims that Barker’s actions have violated his Sixth
Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, Fifth Amendment right to a bond, Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and Fourteenth Amendment right
to due process.
The Report was issued on November 30, 2023, recommending Plaintiff’s Complaint be
summarily dismissed without issuance of service of process. (DE 11.) On December 18, 2023,
Plaintiff objected to the Report. (DE 15.) However, to be actionable, objections to a 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). “The Supreme Court has expressly upheld the validity of such a waiver rule, explaining
that ‘the filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on
those issues -- factual and legal -- that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (2005) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985)). “A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate judge’s report is tantamount to a
failure to object.” Tyler v. Wates, 84 F. App’x 289, 290 (4th Cir. 2003). Absent specific objections
to the Report and Recommendation 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).
Plaintiff’s objections do not address the legal basis for which the Report recommends
dismissal, i.e. that Defendants Barker and Linder are not state actors as a matter of law. Plaintiff
alleges factual reasons for which he believes he should be entitled to relief. For example, he states
on July 19, 2023, Barker did not advise him of a preliminary hearing and stated he could not attend
(DE 15, p. 1). Further, Plaintiff states, “Mrs. Barker is hired by the state, also is drug courts
appointed attorney. She is the reason why I’m facing prison for withholding 3 negative drug tests
from others.” As to Linder, Plaintiff alleges on August 19, 2023, Linder “slandered, telling Judge
I was undermining program, made seem like I was a liar when Judge made me think back of last
use, when I really didn’t know.” (DE 15, p. 3.) Even if any of these allegations are true, there is
no legal basis for the claims to proceed against Barker and Linder under § 1983. Therefore, the
Court overrules the objections.
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record,
the Court adopts the Report (DE 11) and incorporates it here.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs case is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Chl cso
Josaph Dawson, HI
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 15, 2024
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days
from this date, under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.