Griffin v. Catoe et al

Filing 66

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46 57 After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the court findsdefendants motion for summary judgment should be granted. The court accepts andincorporates by reference the portions of the Report not inconsistent herewith.. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/26/08. (ahen, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA B E A U F O R T DIVISION R o b e rt Lewis Griffin, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) v s. ) ) Jason Catoe; Larry Neely; and Paul Smith, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ______________________________________ ) C/A No.: 0:07-1609-JFA ORDER T h e pro se plaintiff, Robert Griffin, is an inmate of the South Carolina Department of C o r r e c ti o n s . He initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that while d e f e n d a n ts were restraining and arresting him, they used excessive force and caused him p h ys ic a l injuries. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n ("Report") dated August 28, 2008, in which he suggests that the court grant d e f e n d a n ts' motion for summary judgment. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts a n d standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. T h e plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. He requested an 1 The Magistrate Judge's review is made 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 this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 e x te n sio n of time to file his objections, and the court granted an extension until September 15, 2 0 0 8 . However, plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of an o b je c tio n , the court reviews the Report only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & A c c id e n t Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1 9 8 5 ). Failure to timely file specific written objections to a report and recommendation re su lts in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the court based upon such re c o m m e n d a tio n . 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v . Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985). P la in tif f claims that the defendants used excessive force in arresting him in violation o f the Fourth Amendment. The Report suggests the court dismiss plaintiff's excessive force c la im because defendants' actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and c irc u m s ta n c es confronting them, in accordance with Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). T h e defendants' uncontested affidavits indicate that plaintiff was fighting with others in a roadway when the defendants attempted to restrain him. The plaintiff broke away and a tta c k ed another individual in handcuffs. The defendants tasered the plaintiff who continued to resist the defendants' attempts at restraint while the plaintiff exhibited an aggressive d e m e a n o r. The record reveals that no significant injuries were noted by the medical p ro f e s s io n a ls at the hospital and the plaintiff was given Motrin and Neosporin. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the court finds defendants' actions were o b je c tiv e ly reasonable, and accepts the Report's recommendation to dismiss the claim that 2 d e f e n d a n ts used excessive force. Having so decided, the court finds it unnecessary to e v a l u a te whether the injury was de minimis or to consider whether qualified immunity would o th e rw is e apply. After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the court finds d e f en d a n ts ' motion for summary judgment should be granted. The court accepts and in c o rp o ra te s by reference the portions of the Report not inconsistent herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED. S ep tem b er 26, 2008 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge 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?