Sparks v. Henderson County Sheriffs Office et al
Filing
20
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 . It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs action (ECF No. 1) be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. This court further renders Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 15) and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) MOOT. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/15/2016. (kric, ) [Transferred from South Carolina on 1/15/2016.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Kurt Kalani Sparks,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Henderson County Sheriff’s Office;
)
Corporal Kyle Collins;
)
Sheriff Charles L. McDonald;
)
Captain Chris Denny;
)
Captain Player;
)
Lieutenant McDonald;
)
Henderson County Law Enforcement
)
Commissioner;
)
John Doe Officer #1;
)
John Doe Officer #2;
)
John Doe Officer #3;
)
Nurse Administrator for HCDF,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-02902-JMC
ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 11), filed on July 29, 2015, recommending that
Plaintiff’s action (ECF No. 1) be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court
incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, and 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those
1
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In his Report, Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald concluded: “In light of the fact that the
relevant events in this case took place in the Western District of North Carolina and all
defendants are in the Western District of North Carolina, . . . venue is improper in the District
Court of South Carolina.” (ECF No. 11 at 2–3 (citing Mead v. Gaston Cnty. Police Dep’t, Civil
Action No. 0:11-cv-3017-JFA, 2012 WL 2012 WL 631850, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2012).)
However, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report on August 26, 2015, (ECF No. 14 at 1)—over
one week later than the stipulated deadline Plaintiff had to file any objections—in which he
“specifically and solely” argues that the Report misstates the actual date of his initial arrest and
requests that this court “modify the record” accordingly. 1
Upon review of the record and Report, this court recognizes that Plaintiff, as part of his
Complaint, indeed states that his initial arrest was on March 23, 2015, (ECF No. 1 at 3), and not
March 25, 3015, as the Report states, (ECF No. 11 at 1). Notwithstanding this discrepancy, this
court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report provides an accurate analysis of the law as applied
to this case’s facts.
The court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 11). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action (ECF No. 1) be TRANSFERRED to
the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. This court further
1
Plaintiff also included an Affidavit (ECF No. 14-1) with his Objection, in which he appears to
generally allege that staff members of the Spartanburg County Detention Center are
inappropriately reading his mail. This court does not consider those allegations here.
2
renders Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 15) and Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 16) MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
January 15, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?