Murray v. Chester SC, City of et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, denying defendant's motion to dismiss and for sanctions, for 35 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on June 17, 2011. (kbos)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Jacob F. Murray, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) City of Chester, S.C.; Chester Police Dept.; ) and Sgt. Gadson, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) C.A. No.: 3:10-1536-TLW-JRM ORDER This action has been filed by the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In his Report, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends that the Defendant’s1 motion to dismiss be denied. The Report also Orders that Defendant’s motion to compel is denied in part (as to Defendant’s Interrogatories 1, 7, 8, and 10) and granted in part (as to the remainder of Defendant’s Interrogatories, Defendant’s Requests for Production, and Defendant’s Requests for Admissions). (Doc. # 35). No objections to the Report have been filed. 1 The Report’s conclusion section actually references “Plaintiff’s” motion to dismiss and “Plaintiff’s” motion to compel. Based on the discussion in the Report and the motions actually pending, it is clear that this is a typographical error and should read “Defendant’s” motion to dismiss and “Defendant’s” motion to compel. 1 This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s 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. No objections have been filed to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 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). A review of the record indicates that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth and articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 35), and the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Doc. # 20). Any request for sanctions at this time is likewise DENIED. (Doc. # 20). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten TERRY L. WOOTEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE June 17, 2011 Florence, South Carolina 2

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?