Hampton v. Stirling et al

Filing 55

ORDER The Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and those claims are therefore REMANDED to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 11/16/2020.Associated Cases: 2:16-cv-03379-TLW, 2:16-cv-03378-TLW, 2:16-cv-03380-TLW, 2:16-cv-03381-TLW, 2:17-cv-00620-TLW(hada, )

2:16-cv-03378-TLW

Date Filed 11/16/20

Entry Number 55

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Christopher McDowell,

Case No. 2:16-cv-03379-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order

Brian P. Stirling, South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Chris
Florian, and David Tatarsky
DEFENDANTS
Henry Belton,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00620-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order

Brian P. Stirling, South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Chris
Florian, and David Tatarsky
DEFENDANTS
Larry Hampton,

Case No. 2:16-cv-03378-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order

Brian P. Stirling, South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Chris
Florian, and David Tatarsky
DEFENDANTS

1

2:16-cv-03378-TLW

Date Filed 11/16/20

David Payton Jr.,

Entry Number 55

Page 2 of 4

Case No. 2:16-cv-03380-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order

Brian P. Stirling, South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Chris
Florian, and David Tatarsky
DEFENDANTS
Michael Smoak,

Case No. 2:16-cv-03381-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order

Brian P. Stirling, South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Chris
Florian, and David Tatarsky
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs filed these civil actions, consolidated for discovery, alleging
constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law causes of action
arising out of the interpretation of the South Carolina Omnibus Crime Reduction and
Sentencing Reform Act of 2010 by the South Carolina Department of Corrections and
two of its attorneys. These matters now come before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom these
cases were assigned.
After the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Campbell v. Florian, 972 F.3d
385 (4th Cir. 2020), the magistrate judge issued an order directing Plaintiffs to show
cause why the Court should not dismiss with prejudice their § 1983 claims in light of

2

2:16-cv-03378-TLW

Date Filed 11/16/20

Entry Number 55

Page 3 of 4

Campbell and why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims. Plaintiffs responded that they were unable to show cause why the § 1983
claims should not be dismissed with prejudice or why the Court should exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The magistrate judge then
issued the Report, recommending that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs’
§ 1983 claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims. Plaintiffs did not file objections to the Report.
This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the Report is ACCEPTED.
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are

The Court declines to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and those claims are therefore
REMANDED to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.

3

2:16-cv-03378-TLW

Date Filed 11/16/20

Entry Number 55

Page 4 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
November 16, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

4