Dickerson v. Charleston Police Department, City of et al

Filing 121

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report 115 is ACCEPTED; Plaintiff's objections 117 , 119 are OVERRULED; Defendants Holmes and Charleston County Magistr ate Court Administration's Motion to Dismiss 26 and Defendants' Motion to Stay 57 are GRANTED. Additionally, the parties' cross motions for summary judgment 74 , 78 and Plaintiff's motion to substitute a party 105 are DENIED without prejudice as premature at this time. As noted in the Report, this ruling renders all other pending motions MOOT. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/2/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Ismail Dickerson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-versus)
)
City of Charleston Police Department;
)
Officer Sgt. L. Reed; Officer B.
)
Wanamaker; Officer Galluccio; Officer
)
Riccio; Officer Ambrose; K9-SPO,
)
Officer Pitchford; K9-SPO, Officer
)
O’Dell; K9-SPO, Officer D.C.
)
Washington; Officer T.J. Dalinsky;
)
CPD Detective Osborne; CPD
)
Detective/Investigator Kosarko;
)
Honorable Magistrate Judge Mary
)
Brown Holmes; and Charleston County
)
Magistrate Court Administration,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

C.A. No. 1:10-1625-TLW-SVH

ORDER

The Plaintiff has brought this pro se action against the Defendants under Title 42, United
States Code, Section 1983. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom
this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends that Defendants Holmes and
Charleston County Magistrate Court Administration’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 26) and
Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. # 57) be granted. (Doc. # 115). The Report further recommends
that the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment (Docs. # 74 & # 78) and Plaintiff’s motion to
substitute a party (Doc. # 105) be denied without prejudice as premature at this time. Finally, the

1

Report notes that if the district judge accepts these recommendations, all other motions will be
rendered moot. The Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report. (Docs. # 117 & # 119).
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the
magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ACCEPTED (Doc. # 115); Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED (Docs. # 117 & # 119);
Defendants Holmes and Charleston County Magistrate Court Administration’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. # 26) and Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. # 57) are GRANTED. Additionally, the parties’
cross motions for summary judgment (Docs. # 74 & # 78) and Plaintiff’s motion to substitute a party
(Doc. # 105) are DENIED without prejudice as premature at this time. As noted in the Report, this
ruling renders all other pending motions MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
September 2, 2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Florence, South Carolina
2