Jones v. Cayce Public Safety et al
Filing
114
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 106 Report and Recommendations, granting 74 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by J Merrill, Jeff Simmons and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 1/11/2012. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Dwight Xavier Jones,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J. Merrill; LT Jeff Simmons,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 3:10-2824-HMH-PJG
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Dwight Xavier Jones (“Jones”), a state
prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends granting the Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, Jones filed three letters,
which the court construes as objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the
Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a
waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the
recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,
94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and
1
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
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).
Upon review, the court finds that Jones’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Accordingly, the court finds that Jones’ objections are without merit. Therefore, after a
thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts
Magistrate Judge Gossett’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, docket number 74, is
granted and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
January 11, 2012
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
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?