Lee Otis Thompson v. Samuel J. Jasper, III

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Lee Otis Thompson, Case No. 2:25-9756-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND OPINION Samuel J. Jasper, III, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 37) recommending Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff objected to the R&R, (Dkt. No. 44), and Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections, asking that the R&R be adopted, (Dkt. No. 46). For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. I. Background Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Dkt. No. 37 at 3). Simply put, Plaintiff alleges Defendant stopped him without probable cause and then arrested Plaintiff for possession of cocaine. (Id. at 2-3). Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. (Dkt. No. 13). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to which Defendant filed a reply. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 17). The Magistrate Judge filed an R&R recommending that the official capacity claim against Defendant be dismissed. The R&R also recommend that Plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 37 at 7 & n.7) (noting, for example, that Plaintiff has no viable [1] claim under the federal Speedy Trial Act, which applies exclusively to criminal prosecutions brought by the United States). The R&R, however, recommended allowing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim to proceed, (Id. at 7-12), as well as Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, (Id. at 12-13). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 44). The objections are mostly nonspecific and generally repeat Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendant filed a reply asking that the Court adopt the R&R. (Dkt. No. 46). II. Legal Standards 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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). 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 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (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 [2] Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). III. Discussion After a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that while Plaintiff’s official capacity claim against Defendant and Plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims must be dismissed, the remainder of Defendant’s motion is appropriately denied. See, e.g., (Dkt. No. 37 at 12 n.5) (noting that while a malicious prosecution claim would not be ripe because charges related to such a claim remain pending, the Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim because Plaintiff had stated a false arrest claim). Plaintiff presents no cogent argument rebutting the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. See, e.g., (Dkt. No. 44 at 2). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 37) as the Order of the Court. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in his official capacity, and Plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims are dismissed. The remainder of Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 12) is denied. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge March 10, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina