Lane v. Palmer et al

Filing 104

OPINION AND ORDER:The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Ju dge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, the Moving Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 71] is DENIED, and Defendant Jane Doe is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D. Austin on 08/29/2024. (apsn)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Christopher Lane,
Plaintiff,
v.
John Palmer, Warden; (Unknown)
Tierry, * Major; (Unknown) Moss,
Captain; Jane Doe, Sergeant,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 0:23-cv-01284-JDA

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Palmer, Terry, and Moss (the “Moving Defendants”) [Doc. 71], and a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 93]. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings.
On July 19, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report, recommending that the
Moving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied and that Defendant Jane
Doe be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 93.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties
of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 11.] No party has filed objections, and the
time to do so has lapsed.

The record reflects that this Defendant’s last name is spelled “Terry.” [Doc. 71-6.]
Accordingly, the Court will refer to this Defendant throughout this Opinion and Order using
the correct spelling of his last name.
*

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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the
Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify
the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court will review 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.
Accordingly, the Moving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 71] is DENIED,
and Defendant Jane Doe is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States District Judge

August 29, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2