8:08-cv-04137-GRA Date Filed 02/13/09 Entry Number 18 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`ANDERSON DIVISION
`
`C/A No. 8:08-4137-GRA-WMC
`
`ORDER
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`George C. McCullough,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`United States of America;
`George W. Bush Jr.;
`Richard B. Cheney;
`Nancy Pelosi;
`John G. Roberts Jr.;
`and et al U.S. persons thereof,
`
`Defendants. )
`____________________________________________
`
`This matter comes before the Court for review of the magistrate’s Report and
`
`Recommendation filed on January 13, 2009 made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
`
`636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). Plaintiff filed this action on
`
`December 24, 2008 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2009, the
`
`magistrate recommended dismissing this action without prejudice and without service
`
`of process. For the foregoing reasons, this Court adopts the magistrate’s
`
`recommendation.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
`
`pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
`
`drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
`
`This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`ANDERSON DIVISION
`
`C/A No. 8:08-4137-GRA-WMC
`
`ORDER
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`George C. McCullough,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`United States of America;
`George W. Bush Jr.;
`Richard B. Cheney;
`Nancy Pelosi;
`John G. Roberts Jr.;
`and et al U.S. persons thereof,
`
`Defendants. )
`____________________________________________
`
`This matter comes before the Court for review of the magistrate’s Report and
`
`Recommendation filed on January 13, 2009 made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
`
`636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). Plaintiff filed this action on
`
`December 24, 2008 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2009, the
`
`magistrate recommended dismissing this action without prejudice and without service
`
`of process. For the foregoing reasons, this Court adopts the magistrate’s
`
`recommendation.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
`
`pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
`
`drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
`
`This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to
`
`
`
`8:08-cv-04137-GRA Date Filed 02/13/09 Entry Number 18 Page 2 of 4
`
`allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall,
`
`454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
`
`The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
`
`recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final
`
`determination remains with this Court. 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, and this Court
`
`may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
`
`made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive
`
`further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id.
`
`In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the
`
`objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation
`
`to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see
`
`United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766
`
`F.2d 841, 845-47 nn.1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). “Courts have . . . held de novo review to
`
`be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory
`
`objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
`
`findings and recommendation.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
`
`Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation,
`
`this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.
`
`Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`8:08-cv-04137-GRA Date Filed 02/13/09 Entry Number 18 Page 3 of 4
`
`The plaintiff first argues that the magistrate failed to take judicial notice of his
`
`claims. Judicial notice is a method of demonstrating a particular fact without the
`
`formal burdens of proof at trial. In the event that a part seeks judicial review of a
`
`particular fact, the opposing party may request a hearing request a hearing to
`
`challenge the propriety and matter notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201(e). However, at this
`
`phase in the proceeding, judicial notice is not releveant. See United States v. Diebold,
`
`Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). Accordingly, this objection is without merit.
`
`Second, the plaintiff argues that the doctrine of immunity is inapplicable in pre-
`
`trial proceedings. However, as the magistrate points out, immunity has been
`
`recognized as a valid and complete defense for certain elected officials for actions.
`
`Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982). The named defendants are amongst
`
`those protected by the doctrine of immunity. Additionally, immunity may be (and
`
`generally must be) addressed at the early stages of a proceeding. Kennedy v. City of
`
`Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297, 300 (6th Cir.1986). Accordingly, this objection must be
`
`denied
`
`After reviewing the record, and the Report and Recommendation this Court finds
`
`that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore,
`
`this Court adopts the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice and without
`
`issuance and service of process. Moreover, all outstanding motions are dismissed as
`
`moot.
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`8:08-cv-04137-GRA Date Filed 02/13/09 Entry Number 18 Page 4 of 4
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Anderson, South Carolina
`
`February 13 , 2009
`
`NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
`
`Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
`
`Petitioner has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of
`
`its entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.
`
`Page 4 of 4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
