Law et al v. Fairfax, The Town of et al

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 4 Motion to Dismiss is denied. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/5/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Charles Law, Sr. and Betty J. Law,
Plaintiffs,
v.
The Town of Fairfax, an Incorporated
South Carolina Municipality; Officer
John Doe, Individually as a police
officer for the Town of Fairfax; and
Officer J. Singleton, Individually as a
police officer for the Town of Fairfax,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-03309-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiffs 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. 14), filed on January 8, 2016, recommending that
Defendant John Doe’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) be denied, Defendant the Town of
Fairfax’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) be denied, and Defendant J. Singleton’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 4) be denied. 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).
Defendants were advised of their right to file an objection to the Report “within fourteen
(14) days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by January 25, 2016.
(ECF No. 14.) Defendants 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. 14). It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant John Doe’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is DENIED, Defendant
the Town of Fairfax’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is DENIED, and Defendant J. Singleton’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
February 5, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina