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)

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