Johnson v. All Agents involved in manhunt of David L Johnson on January 29, 2012 et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting the 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and dismissing the 15 Amended Complaint without prejudice as to the following defendants: Jane Doe, Nurse, Aiken Co Dent. Center; and All Agents involved in the January 29, 2012 manhunt of David L. Johnson, For the Agencies of: North Augusta Public Safety; SWAT; Aiken Co Sheriff; SC State Troopers; and Aiken Co Blood Hound Team. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/18/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
David Lee Johnson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
All Agents involved in the January 29, 2012
)
manhunt of David L. Johnson, For the
)
Agencies of: North Augusta Public Safety;
)
SWAT; Aiken Co Sheriff; SC State Troopers; )
and Aiken Co Blood Hound Team; George
)
McElveen, III, in his official and individual
)
capacities; J Strom Thurmond, Jr., Solicitor, in )
his official and individual capacities; John
)
Nelson, Investigator, in his official and
)
individual capacities; Jane Doe, Nurse, Aiken )
Co Dent. Center,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00503-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 35), filed on February
24, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff David Lee Johnson’s amended complaint (ECF No. 15)
against Defendant All Agents be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff David Lee Johnson’s
amended complaint (ECF No. 15) against Defendant Jane Doe be dismissed without prejudice.
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court
incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only
a recommendation to this court, and 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 objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file an objection to the Report “within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by March 14, 2016. (ECF
No. 35.) Plaintiff filed no objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s
note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and there is no clear error. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35). It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff David Lee Johnson’s amended complaint (ECF No. 15) against
Defendant All Agents be DISMISSED without prejudice, and Plaintiff David Lee Johnson’s
amended complaint (ECF No. 15) against Defendant Jane Doe be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
March 18, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina