Linder v. Wilson et al

Filing 32

ORDER adopting the 30 Report and Recommendation and granting Defendant James's 18 motion to dismiss. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 8/30/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Stanley Linder,
Plaintiff,

v.
Maverick Wilson; Angelena Brown;
Tonya James; and Sgt. Thomas,
Defendants.

--------------------

---------

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

No: 1: 16-cv-754-RMG

ORDER

)

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court grant Defendant James's motion to dismiss.
(Dkt. No. 30). For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R and GRANTS
Defendant James's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff brought this action pro se, alleging that Defendant Wilson placed contraband in
Plaintiffs legal mail and subsequently charged Plaintiff with smuggling contraband. (Dkt. No.1
at 3). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant James was "associated with fabricating this charge." (Id.).
Defendant James filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 18), and Plaintiff
filed a response (Dkt. No. 27). The Magistrate Judge subsequently issued an R & R
recommending that this Court dismiss grant Defendant James's motion to dismiss because
Defendant James has Eleventh Amendment immunity when acting in her official capacity, and
Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant James was liable as an individual or in a supervisory
capacity. (Dkt. No. 30 at 3-4). Plaintiffhas not filed any objections to the R & R.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
1

a de novo determination ofthose portions ofthe R & R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the plaintiff
fails to file any specific objections, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for
clear error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005), and this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court, having reviewed the complaint, Plaintiffs response to Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and R & R, finds no clear error, and agrees with and adopts the R & R as the order of
the Court. Accordingly, the Court therefore GRANTS Defendant James's motion to dismiss.
(Dkt. No. 18).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard M. Gergel
United States District Court Judge
August ~, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

2