Evans v. Sumter, City of et al

Filing 39

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 36 Report and Recommendations, granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment by Sumter County South Carolina, Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center, granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment by City of Sumter, Patty J Patterson, Sumter Police Department and finding as moot 25 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 09/03/08. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

R e g in a ld Evans, Plaintiff, vs. The City of Sumter, South Carolina; Chief o f Sumter Police Patty J. Patterson; Sumter P o lice Department; Sumter County, South C a ro lin a ; Sumter-Lee Regional Detention C en ter, Defendants. _____________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C/A No.: 3:07-2688-JFA-JRM

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Reginald Evans, was a pretrial detainee at the Sumter County D e ten tio n Center during the time of the matters alleged in his complaint. He initiated this a c tio n pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the defendants' actions subjected him to illegal arrest; improper stop, search and seizure; a failure to provide him with legal c o u n se l, a speedy trial, bail and bond; a failure to provide him with proper medical care; and p la c em e n t in a life threatening environment. He also alleges inadequate use of force and c o n d u c t policies, as well as negligence in supervising, training, disciplining, and in v e s t i g a tin g police officers alleged to have engaged in misconduct. He requests $300 m illio n in damages, plus declaratory and injunctive relief. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 7 3 .0 2 . The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive w e i g h t , and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261

1

1

R e c o m m e n d a tio n wherein he suggests that the defendants' motions for summary judgment2 s h o u ld be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on th is matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. T h e plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on August 12, 2008. However, the p la in tif f did not file any objections 3 to the Report within the time limits prescribed. The p lain tiff is not and was not in custody at the time of the filing of his complaint in this court. A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and R ec o m m en d atio n , the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. A c c o rd in g ly, the Report is incorporated herein by reference and defendants' motions for s u m m a ry judgment are granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

S e p te m b e r 3, 2008 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific o b j e c t i o n is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e , or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4 th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of the s u m m a r y dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for summary j u d g m e n t. Plaintiff responded to the motions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of t h e Magistrate Judge's Report to which objections have been filed. The court reviews the Report only for clear error in t h e absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4 th Cir. 2005). T h o m a s v. Arn, 474 U . S . 140, 150 (1985). Failure to timely file specific written objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 9 1 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985).
3 2

2