Hornsby v. Thompson et al
Filing
22
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 8 Report and Recommendations, this matter is partially dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants Marion Foxworth, James Frazier, Bob Grabowski, Gary Loftus, Jody Prince, Paul Prince, W Paul Prince, Tom Rice, Brent Schultz, Carl Schwartzkopf, Phillip Thompson, Harold Worley, Al Allen and Tom Fox. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/20/2011. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Christopher Dean Hornsby,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Phillip Thompson, Debroah Hipp, Tom
Fox, Tom Rice, Harold Worley, Brent
Schultz, Marion Foxworth, Gary Loftus,
Paul Prince, Bob Grabowski, James
Frazier, Carl Schwartzkopf, W. Paul
Prince, Jody Prince, Al Allen,
Defendants.
C.A. No.: 0:11-cv-01749-RBH-PJG
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence
of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005)
stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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.'” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's
note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint in this matter is partially summarily dismissed, without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process, as to Defendants Thompson, Fox, Rice,
Worley, Schultz, Foxworth, Loftus, Paul Prince, Grabowski, Frazier, Schwartzkopf, W. Paul
Prince, Jody Prince, and Allen, because Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for which relief
may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
September 20, 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?