Brown v. Deaton

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