Harsey v. Marzol et al

Filing 48

ORDER ACCEPTING 42 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 36 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Robert Marzol, Officer Watkins, P Dufault, Officer Antley. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 7/9/2015. (gmil)

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

David Douglas Harsey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Cpl. Robert Marzol, Sgt. P. Dufault, Officer
)
Watkins and Officer Antley,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________ )

C/A No.: 3:13-cv-2036-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff David Douglas Harsey filed this action on July 24, 2013, alleging violation of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). This matter now comes
before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on May 29,
2015, by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett (ECF No. 42), to whom this case was previously
assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on June 11,
2015. (ECF No. 43). This matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court has reviewed the Report and the objections. In conducting this review, the
Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's
1

review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the
magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the Objections. After careful review of the Report and Objections thereto, the Court hereby
ACCEPTS the Report. (ECF No. 42).

The Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 43) are

OVERRULED. In his objections, the Plaintiff argues that he was not in public at the time of his
arrest for disorderly conduct. However, the Plaintiff himself indicates that he shouted profanity
at the Defendants from his house while the Defendants were standing in the street. (Doc. #36-3 at
35). In light of the record, the Court finds that the Defendants reasonably believed that probable
cause existed to arrest the Plaintiff for violation of § 28-83 of the Cayce, South Carolina Code of
Ordinances. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 36) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge

July 9, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

2