Phillip Maurice Hicks v. Berkeley County, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00111
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Phillip Maurice Hicks, Case No. 2:26-cv-111-RMG

Plaintiff, v. ORDER Berkeley County, et al.

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process and without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff was given notice that he had 14 days from the date of the R&R to file written objections to the R&R, and a failure to file timely written objections would result in clear error review and a waiver of the right to appeal the district court order. (Id. at 24). Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the R & R. I. Background Plaintiff, acting pro se, sued a wide range of governmental entities and individuals under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged deprivation of due process in relation to certain Berkeley County family court proceedings and a pending stalking charge also arising in Berkeley County. He also asserts various state law claims. Plaintiff asserts these claims on behalf of himself and an entity, All Our Girls, LLC. In a detailed and comprehensive R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends the summary dismissal of the suit on a variety of separate and independent bases. First, the Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of all claims brought on behalf of All Our Girls, LLC because Plaintiff, acting pro se, cannot represent a corporate entity in federal court. (Dkt. No. 8 at 7-8). Second, the 1 Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of the federal claims against Defendants City of Charleston and Berkeley County because the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to support a municipal liability claim. (Id. at 9-11). Third, the Magistrate Judge recommends the summary dismissal of the claims against Defendants Jarrett and Landis based on judicial

immunity. (Id. at 11-13). Fourth, the Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of all federal due process claims against the remaining named individual defendants because they were not acting under color of state law. (Id. at 13-18.). Fifth, the Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of all claims challenging pending state legal proceedings as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine and the Rooker Feldman doctrine. (Id. at 18-22). Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the district court decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. (Id. at 22-23). II. Legal Standard A. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation 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 R&R to which specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 B. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court

can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. for City of Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). III. Discussion The Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint and correctly concluded that his federal claims are subject to summary dismissal on multiple separate and independent grounds. The Magistrate Judge further appropriately recommended that the Court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R as the Order of the Court (Dkt. No. 8) and DISMISSES this action without issuance and service of process and without leave to amend. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

February 3, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina