Colley v. Richland County South Carolina et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting 32 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. The case is remanded to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Richland County to allow Plaintiff to pursue his state law causes of action. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 7/19/10. (ltap, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA R o n a ld W. Colley, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v s. ) ) W.G. Connors and Leon Lott, ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________) C/A No. 2:09-1313-MBS ORDER P l a in t iff Ronald W. Colley, proceeding pro se, filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas fo r Richland County, South Carolina, on April 20, 2009, alleging that Defendants violated his c o n s titu tio n a l rights. Plaintiff also alleged state law claims for negligence, false arrest, and d e fa m a t i o n . Defendants removed the action to this court on May 19, 2009. An attorney made an a p p e a ra n c e on behalf of Plaintiff on June 9, 2009. Counsel for Plaintiff filed an amended complaint o n July 8, 2010, alleging causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (violation of the Fourth A m e n d m e n t ); malicious prosecution, battery, false arrest, and negligence. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr for pretrial handling. On May 21, 2010, Plaintiff fi l e d a motion to dismiss his federal claims (Entry 32). On June 17, 2010, Defendants filed a r e s p o n s e in support of Plaintiff's motion. On June 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report a n d Recommendation in which he recommended that Plaintiff's motion to dismiss federal claims be gra n te d .1 The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction In the conclusion of the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge inadvertently recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. Entry 34, 2. 1 o v e r Plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). No party filed objections to the M a gistra te Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo r e v i e w , but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in o rd e r to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). The court has carefully reviewed the record and adopts the Magistrate Judge's re c o m m e n d a tio n that Plaintiff's motion to dismiss federal claims (Entry 32) be granted and that the c o u r t decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. The case is r e m a n d e d to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Richland County to allow Plaintiff to p u rs u e his state law causes of action. I T IS SO ORDERED. / s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina J u ly 19, 2010. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?