McLeod v. McCormick et al
Filing
76
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 75 Report and Recommendation, granting 58 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/2/2012. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Robert McLeod,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Deron McCormick; Dean Benenhaly;
)
Herbert Williams; and City of Sumter,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A No. 3:11-174-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
On January 22, 2011, Plaintiff Robert McLeod (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 against Defendants alleging claims for race discrimination and retaliation
for exercising his First Amendment rights. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
March 1, 2012.
BACKGROUND
The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) , D.S.C., and which was filed on September 7, 2012. Dkt. No. 75. The
Report recommends that the court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id. The parties
were advised of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if they failed to do so. Id. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, which were
due on September 24, 2012.
STANDARD
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 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a
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 to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of an objection, the court reviews the Report
and Recommendation only for clear error. 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).
CONCLUSION
The court has reviewed the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the court grants Defendants’
motion for summary judgment and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 2, 2012
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?