Grant v. Berkeley County Sheriffs Office et al

Filing 10

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 9) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES Defendant County Sheriff's Office as a party to this action. The 1983 claim against Defendant Longieliere for malicious prosecution remains. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/25/24. (ltap, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
C/A: 2:24-cv-4262-RMG

Maurice Grant,
v.

Plaintiff,
ORDER

Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office and
Deputy Austin Longieliere,
Defendants.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge
recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt.
No. 9). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Longieliere be denied and
Defendants’ motion to dismiss state law claims against Defendant Berkeley County Sheriff’s
Office for gross negligence and malicious prosecution be granted. The parties were given notice
of right to the file written objections to the R & R within fourteen days of service of the R & R
and a failure to file objections would limit review by the District Court to clear error review and
waiver of the right to appeal. (Id. at 18). No objections to the R & R were filed by any party.
Legal Standards
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. See 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. 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).
-1-

Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “a district court need not conduct a de novo
review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). Because the parties did not file objections to
the R&R, the R&R is reviewed for clear error.
Discussion
After a review of the record and the R&R, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably
addressed the issues and correctly determined that all claims asserted against the Berkeley County
Sheriff’s Office should be dismissed and Defendant’s motion to dismiss the malicious prosecution
claim brought under § 1983 against Defendant Longieliere be denied.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 9) as the Order of the
Court and DISMISSES Defendant County Sheriff’s Office as a party to this action. The § 1983
claim against Defendant Longieliere for malicious prosecution remains.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
September 25, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

-2-