IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mark Linton Roberts, ) C/A No.: 6:25-6122-JFA-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) )

) vs. REPORT AND ) ) RECOMMENDATION Magistrate Judge Seldon T. Peden, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Mark Linton Roberts (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by South Carolina Magistrate Judge Selden T. Peden (“Defendant”). Pursuant to

(b)(1) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), The undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed. I. Factual Background Plaintiff alleges he appeared before Defendant on January 3, 2025, for an initial bond hearing. [ECF No. 1 at 10]. He alleges Defendant gave himself ten days to “‘probe’” into Plaintiff’s case and then determine a bond amount. Plaintiff claims Defendant did not see him again and Plaintiff eventually received papers indicating he had been denied bond. . Plaintiff states he did not sign the papers, but the papers contained his signature. Plaintiff claims Defendant violated his rights by failing to set or deny bond on January 3, 2025,

or having a hearing at a later time. . at 11. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to

, which permits

an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted or is frivolous or malicious.

(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. ,

(1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed under

(e)(2)(B). ,

(1989). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. ,

(4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se

litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. ,

(2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. ,

(2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a

valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. ,

, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990). B. Analysis Defendant is subject to summary dismissal based on judicial immunity. It is well-settled that judges have immunity from claims arising out of their

judicial actions. ,

(1991). Judicial immunity is a protection from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages, and such immunity is not pierced by allegations of corruption or bad faith. ,

; ,

, 356‒57 (1978) (“A

judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”) (citation omitted). As Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant relate

to his judicial actions, he is entitled to absolute immunity. III. Conclusion and Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the complaint with prejudice! and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Slalger June 24, 2025 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

1 Because Plaintiffs claims would ultimately fail if he were permitted to amend his complaint, the undersigned recommends the district judge order the dismissal with prejudice.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, 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.’” ,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation.

(b)(1); ,

(1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1984).