Burris v. North Charleston Police Department et al

Filing 36

ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that the case is dismissed as to Defendant North Charleston Police Department without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 6/13/2013.(abuc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Shawn Justin Burris,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
North Charleston Police Department; Det. )
Ware; Det. Sturkie; Det. Terry; PTL Scott )
Michael Thomes; Thomas Eugene
)
Bennett; and SGT Darin Cobb,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 2:13-cv-00699-GRA-SVH

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter is before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva
V. Hodges’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) of the District of South Carolina, and filed on May 16,
2013. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff Shawn Justin Burris (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought
this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that Plaintiff’s case against the North Charleston Police Department be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance or service of process. The Magistrate Judge authorized the
issuance and service of process for the remaining Defendants.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court.

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71

(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or
Page 1 of 2

recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. “The failure to file objections
to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.” Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see Carter v.
Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Furthermore, in the absence
of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). In this case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
June 3, 2013, and no objections have been filed.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and

Recommendation

accurately

summarizes

the

case

and

the

applicable

law.

Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED as to Defendant North
Charleston Police Department without prejudice and without issuance or service of
process. The claims against the other named Defendants are unaffected by this Order and
will proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 13 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2