Singletary v. S.C. Dep't of Educ.
| Decision Date | 26 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:11-01449-MBS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | John G. Singletary, Jr., d/b/a Singletary Tax Services, Plaintiff, v. The South Carolina Department of Education (First Steps), Russell Brown, Dan Covey (Procurement Officer), Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP, Alan Robinson, Elliot Davis, LLC, Laurie Smith, all collectively and Individually and others to be named, Defendants. |
Plaintiff John G. Singletary, Jr., d/b/a Singletary Tax Services ("Plaintiff"), filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against Defendants The South Carolina Department of Education ("SCDOE"), Russell Brown ("Brown"), Dan Covey ("Covey"), Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP ("CB&H"), Alan Robinson ("Robinson"), Elliot Davis, LLC ("ED"), and Laurie Smith ("Smith") (collectively "Defendants"). (ECF No. 104.) Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from Defendants collectively and individually for alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection and for an alleged conspiracy to interfere with his civil rights. (Id.) Plaintiff also asserts state law claims for conspiracy and violation of the South Carolina Consolidated Procurement Code ("SCPC"), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 11-35-10 to 5270.1 (Id.) This matter is before the court primarily on motions to dismiss for (1)failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (the "Rule 12(b)(6) motion(s)") by Defendants; and (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (the "Rule 12(b)(1) motion(s)") by SCDOE, Brown, Covey, ED, and Smith.2 (ECF Nos. 111, 112, 113, 119, 140.) Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 144, 145, 146, 147.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks for pretrial handling. On February 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the court grant Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismiss the entire case with prejudice. (ECF No. 153.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, asking the court to reject the recommendation and order the completion of discovery. (ECF No. 156.) For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and GRANTS Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions.
A general background to this matter is provided in the following excerpt from an order issued by the South Carolina Procurement Review Panel adjudicating Plaintiff's administrative appeal:
On June 14, 2011, Plaintiff commenced an action pro se in this court against SCDOE, Covey, CB&H, and ED, alleging generally that he was prevented by Defendants from acquiring the First Steps' accounting contract in violation of the SCPC; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17; the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7; the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27; the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58; the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, 15 U.S.C. § 13; and the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, 49 U.S.C. §§ 10101-16106 (as amended). (ECF No. 1.) On June 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "complaint supplement," which was docketed as an amended complaint, to add Robinson and Smith as Defendants and to provide additional documentation in support of his allegations. (ECF No. 5.) In response to the allegations of Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint, motions to dismiss were filed by SCDOE on August 5, 2011; ED and Smith onAugust 8, 2011; CB&H and Robinson on August 17, 2011; and Covey on August 29, 2011. (ECF Nos. 20, 27, 34, 40.) Plaintiff filed opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss on September 8, 2011, September 13, 2011, and September 22, 2011. (ECF Nos. 46, 48, 51, 53.)
Thereafter, on November 18, 2011, Plaintiff moved the court for an emergency stay of the case pending the adjudication of "the matter on the merits." (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff further moved the court on February 14, 2012, to recuse the Magistrate Judge, to allow him to amend his complaint, and to stay the matter. (ECF No. 71.) On February 29, 2012, the court entered an order that (1) dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the SCDOE and his Title VII claims against SCDOE and Covey (ECF Nos. 20, 40), (2) denied the motions to dismiss of CB&H and ED (ECF Nos. 27, 34), (3) denied Plaintiff's motion for recusal of the Magistrate Judge and to stay the matter (ECF No. 71), (4) granted Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint (ECF No. 72), and (5) denied as moot Plaintiff's initial motion to stay the action (ECF No. 60). (ECF No. 75.)
On June 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint naming as Defendants Covey, Brown, CB&H, Robinson, ED, and Smith. (ECF No. 104.) Plaintiff appears to assert the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) violation of the Equal Protection Clause, (2) violation of the Due Process Clause, (3) conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, (4) civil conspiracy under state law, and (5) violation of the SCPC. (Id.) In support of these claims, Plaintiff generally alleges that he was illegally prevented from acquiring the First Steps' accounting contract because (1) the public opening date was changed several times with no explanation; (2) the evaluators' scores were tampered with; (3) the bid process, as prescribed by the SCPC, was not followed; (4) he was deprived of a fair evaluation, (5) he was refusedparticipation in the public bid opening; (6) that his bid was "not honored on the same terms and conditions embodied" in the SCPC; and (7) Defendants conspired with each other "to deny plaintiff the fruits of his efforts" by altering bids after submission, which resulted in CB&H and ED receiving the accounting contracts. (ECF No. 104.) In response to the allegations of Plaintiff's pro se second amended complaint, the instant motions to dismiss were filed by ED, Smith, CB&H, and Robinson on June 14, 2012; SCDOE on June 18, 2012; Covey on June 28, 2012; and Brown on August 22, 2012. (ECF Nos. 111, 112, 113, 119, 140.) Plaintiff filed opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss on August 28, 2012. (ECF Nos. 144, 145, 146, 147.)
On February 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the aforementioned Report and Recommendation wherein she recommended that the court grant Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions. (ECF No. 153.) On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, asking the court to reject the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and order the completion of discovery. (ECF No. 156.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court reviews de novo only those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which specific objections are filed, and reviews those portions which are not objected to—including those portions to which only "general and conclusory" objections have been made—for clear error. Diamond v.Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would support her claim and would entitle her to relief. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial