Brown, Jr v. Johnson
OPINION AND ORDER The Court adopts the 32 Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is ordered that Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 04/27/2021.(hcor, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Henry Brown, Jr.,
C/A No.: 2:20-cv-02426-JD
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Mary Gordon Baker (“Report and Recommendation”), made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Henry Brown,
Jr. (“Brown” or “Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, seeks damages based on alleged civil rights
violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendant Major Joey Johnson (“Johnson” or “Defendant”) filed a Motion to Dismiss on
October 13, 2021. (DE 12.) On October 14, 2020, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309
(4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment and motion to dismiss procedures
and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to the motion. (DE 13.) Upon
receiving four extensions of time in which to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff
failed to file a response.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Report and Recommendation recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be
granted. (DE 32.) The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the
absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983). The Court 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). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record
in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph Dawson, III
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 27, 2021
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days
from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?