Gause v. Thompson et al
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 33 Report and Recommendations, granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Phillip Thompson, Tom Fox, denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Roger Gause. The federal claims in this matter are dismissed with prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff's claims can be construed as asserting state law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these matters and they are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 8/9/2011. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Roger Gause,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Phillip Thompson, Tom Fox,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 0:10-2066-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 19, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment be granted and this matter dismissed with prejudice. 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. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing
so has expired.
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 (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
1
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 reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 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.”) (citation omitted).
After considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the Report and its conclusions. Therefore, the court adopts
and incorporates the Report by reference in this order.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is granted and the federal claims asserted in this matter are dismissed with prejudice.
To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint can be construed as asserting state law claims, the court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these matters and they are dismissed without
prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
August 9, 2011
2
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?