The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Jamel Raewkwon Brown, #00388867, Case No. 2:25-cv-6846-RMG
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND OPINION
Rad Stuart Deaton,
Defendant.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge
recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service
of process, and that the Court decline to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 7).
Plaintiff objected to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 10). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the
R&R as the Order of the Court.
I. Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
1
II. Discussion
Plaintiff, a state prisoner detainee, brings suit alleging that his former defense attorney,
Defendant Rad Stuart Deaton, violated the Sixth Amendment in representing Plaintiff in prior
criminal proceedings. (Dkt. No. 1). As the Magistrate Judge ably noted, an attorney “does not act
under color of state law ‘when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a
defendant in a criminal proceeding.’” (Dkt. No. 7 at 4) (citing cases). Plaintiff’s objections
reiterate his complaint that “Rad Stuart Deaton has violated [his] 6th constitutional rights.” (Dkt.
No. 10 at 2). The Court adopts the R&R’s factual findings and holds that Plaintiff’s complaint is
subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the R&R is ADOPTED as the Order of the Court. Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND
SERVICE OF PROCESS.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Richard Mark Gergel
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
August 6, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina
2