# Brown v. Newton

> District Court, D. South Carolina · October 8, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10669077

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** October 8, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10669077

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “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.’”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tommy Dwayne Brown, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 8:24-cv-4219-BHH
v. )
)
Travis Newton, Dennis Bannister, ) ORDER
South Carolina Judicial System, )
Mayor Elanor Dorn, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Tommy Dwayne Brown’s pro se
(“Plaintiff”) complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for preliminary review.
On September 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
(“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this
action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of
process. (ECF No. 15.) In the Report, the Magistrate Judge explained that many of
Plaintiff’s claims are duplicative to claims made in other actions and that the South Carolina
Judicial System is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. The Magistrate Judge
also explained that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to include allegations of wrongdoing against
Mayor Elanor Dorn; judicial immunity applies to Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Bannister;
and Plaintiff’s claims against Travis Newton, Esq., are subject to dismissal because Newton
was not acting under color of state law. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge also explained that
some of Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal because they are frivolous in nature.
Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right
to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To
date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed
the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates
the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 15), and the Court summarily dismisses this
action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service
of process.

2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 8, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10669077. Public record. Not legal advice.