Calvin Malik Tucker v. Richland County Judicial Center; Alvin S. Glenn...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION ) Calvin Malik Tucker, ) Case No. 3:26-cv-00131-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) OPINION AND ORDER ) v. ) ) Richland County Judicial Center; ) Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; ) Kershaw County Det. Center; Fielding ) Priengle; Lindsay Adler; Officer ) Lipson; Crayman Harvey, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 1; 8.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings.

On January 13, 2026, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1.] On February 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. [Doc. 8.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 6.] The Clerk docketed objections from Plaintiff on February 20, 2026. [Doc. 11.]

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Report concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint is “so incomprehensible and filled with what could only be considered by a reasonable person as unconnected, conclusory, and unsupported comments or gibberish, that it is unclear what is to be made of them,” that it should be summarily dismissed as frivolous. [Doc. 8 at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted).] Alternatively, the Report recommended that the Complaint be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim for multiple reasons, including that he “fails to connect any of his vague and conclusory allegations to conduct by the defendants,” that “Defendants Richland County Judicial Center, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Cetner, and ‘Kershaw County Det. Center’ are not ‘persons’ amenable to suit under § 1983,” and that “the only injuries Plaintiff alleges he has suffered appear to be related to the assaults that form the basis of Plaintif’s pending § 1983 case, C/A No. 0:24-5347-JDA-PJG, in which he alleges excessive force and failure to protect against officials at Alvin S. Glenn” and that “[a]ny claim concerning those assaults should be summarily dismissed as duplicative.” [Doc. 8 at 4–5.] In his objections, Plaintiff largely does not engage the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. [See generally Doc. 11.]

Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution for the pro se Plaintiff, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. Upon such review, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without issuance and service of process, without leave to amend, and without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge April 8, 2026 Columbia, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.