IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON DIVISION 

Kuhn for Congress, ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) C.A. No.: 2:13-cv-3337-PMD 

 ) 

v. ) ORDER

 ) 

Federal Election Commission, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge. Having reviewed the entire 

record, including Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge fairly and 

accurately summarized the facts and applied the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the 

Court adopts the R&R and fully incorporates it into this Order. 

JURISDICTION 

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, which provides for judicial review when a person claims to have 

suffered a legal wrong as a result of agency action. Additionally, the Federal Election Campaign 

Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101–30146, under which the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) fined 

Plaintiff for its failure to timely file mandatory campaign expenditure reports, provides an 

avenue for a litigant to request district court review of adverse determinations by the FEC, id. 

§ 30109 (a)(4)(C)(iii). 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s challenge to the FEC’s November 5, 2013 decision to 

fine Plaintiff $8,800 for the late filing of its April 2013 Quarterly Report. John R. Kuhn, a 

2:13-cv-03337-PMD Date Filed 12/15/14 Entry Number 47 Page 1 of 5
2 

licensed attorney who represents Plaintiff Kuhn for Congress (“the Campaign”) in this action, 

was a candidate in the Republican Party’s 2013 special election primary for the South Carolina 

First District House of Representatives seat. Mr. Kuhn lost the special election held on March 

19, 2013. 

Under 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(4)(A), the Campaign’s April 2013 quarterly report was due 

on April 15, 2013. The Campaign failed to timely file the report. On May 3, 2013, the FEC’s 

Assistant Staff Director sent a letter via email to the Campaign’s email address, advising it that 

the report had not been filed by the statutory deadline and that civil penalties may be assessed for 

failure to timely file the report. Thereafter, the FEC initiated an administrative-fines proceeding 

against the Campaign for the unfiled report. The FEC ultimately voted that the Campaign had 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a) by failing to file the required report. Lacking reported campaign 

activity, the FEC estimated Plaintiff’s fine according to an established formula that considered 

the Campaign’s total receipts and disbursements for the period covered by the unfiled report in 

determining an adequate fine. The FEC calculated that the appropriate penalty for the reporting 

violation, based on the formula, was $8,800. On July 24, 2013, the FEC notified the Campaign 

and its treasurer, Amanda Michelle Perry, by letter of its decision and explained the process for 

challenging the Commission’s decision. After receiving the notification regarding the FEC’s 

determination, Mr. Kuhn contacted FEC staff but the Campaign declined to submit an 

administrative challenge to the Commission’s determination or civil penalty calculation. On 

August 20, 2013, the Campaign filed the report, and reported campaign activity in excess of the 

amount estimated by the FEC.1

 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

1

 The fact that the Commission’s regulatory formula underestimated the level of activity did not alter the fine 

imposed. 

2:13-cv-03337-PMD Date Filed 12/15/14 Entry Number 47 Page 2 of 5
3 

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed its original Complaint in this Court. Plaintiff was 

ordered to bring its case into proper form, and thereafter filed a Supplement, captioned “Petition 

for Review” (“the Complaint”), on January 6, 2014. On March 28, 2014, the Defendant filed its 

Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed his Response on April 11, 2014. Defendant filed its Reply on 

April 21, 2014.2

 On October 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Defendant’s 

motion be granted. Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the R&R. The R&R is ripe for 

consideration. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Magistrate Judge made his review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. It 

has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with 

the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). Parties are allowed to make a 

written objection to a Magistrate Judge’s report within fourteen days after being served a copy of 

the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). From the objections, the Court reviews de novo those 

portions of the R&R that have been specifically objected to, and the Court is allowed to accept, 

reject, or modify the R&R in whole or in part. Id. Any written objection must specifically 

identify both the portion of the R&R to which the objection is made and the basis for the 

objection. Id. Additionally, the Court may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with 

instructions. Id. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2

 Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply on July 29, 2014. Under the Local Civil Rules, “[r]eplies to responses are discouraged.” 

Local Civ. Rule 7.07 (D.S.C.). Moreover, neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Civil Rules 

permit the filing of a sur-reply without leave of the Court. In the present case, Plaintiff did not seek or obtain leave 

to file a sur-reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply is not properly before the Court and will not be considered in 

ruling on the R&R. Nevertheless, having reviewed the Sur-Reply, the Court concludes that the arguments contained 

therein would not alter the Court’s analysis or determination of the legal issues presently before the Court. 

2:13-cv-03337-PMD Date Filed 12/15/14 Entry Number 47 Page 3 of 5
4 

ANALYSIS 

 A district court reviews specific objections to an R&R under a de novo standard. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b). If a party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. 

Durkee v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 742, 747 (W.D. N.C. 2011), aff'd, 

502 Fed. Appx. 326 (4th Cir. 2013). “Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of 

generalized objection to cover all issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a 

party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report be specific and particularized, as the statute 

directs the district court to review only those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 

(4th Cir. 2007). Similarly, merely reiterating the same arguments made in the pleading 

submitted to the Magistrate Judge does not warrant de novo review. Id.; Veney v. Astrue, 539 F. 

Supp. 2d 841, 846 (W.D. Va. 2008). “Allowing a litigant to obtain de novo review of [the] entire 

case by merely reformatting an earlier brief as an objection ‘mak[es] the initial reference to the 

magistrate useless.’” Id. 

 In its Objections to the R&R, Plaintiff merely restates the arguments originally presented 

in the Complaint and in its Sur-Reply. In its Objections, which number fourteen pages, Plaintiff 

does not cite a single case in support of its main arguments, namely, that the FEC’s method of 

notification via email violates due process and that the FEC’s method of calculation of the fine is 

arbitrary. Although the party challenging the agency action bears the burden of proof to show it 

is entitled to relief, Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 874–75 (1990), the Court 

conducted an independent inquiry of the relevant case law. Upon the Court’s own inquiry, there 

is no case law which supports Plaintiff’s contention that the FEC’s actions were “arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,” the standard set 

2:13-cv-03337-PMD Date Filed 12/15/14 Entry Number 47 Page 4 of 5
5 

out by Virginia Agricultural Growers Ass’n, Inc. v. Donovan, 774 F.2d 89, 93 (4th Cir. 1985) 

(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),(C)), which the district court is bound to apply. Ultimately, after 

a comprehensive review of the record and of the applicable law, the Court finds that the 

Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts and applied the correct principles of 

law and that Plaintiff’s Objections are without merit. 

CONCLUSION 

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 15, 2014 

Charleston, South Carolina

2:13-cv-03337-PMD Date Filed 12/15/14 Entry Number 47 Page 5 of 5