Fox v. Douglas et al

Filing 69

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 64 Report and Recommendations, denying 45 Motion to Dismiss filed by Rafael A Douglas, denying 52 Motion to Dismiss filed by Officer-Edgemon. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 6/6/2011. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Kenneth Fox,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Rafael A. Douglas and Officer Edgemon, )
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A NO. 3:10-2199-CMC-PJG

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, asserting various claims
against the above-listed Defendants.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On May 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the
parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if they failed to do so. No objections have been filed to the Report and the time for
doing so has expired.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by

1

the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“in the absence of a timely filed objection, 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.”) (citation omitted).
After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the
court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for
further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
June 6, 2011

2