Hunt v. West Columbia Police Dept et al
ORDER ADOPTING 72 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 48 and 62 Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and dismissing Plaintiff's federal claims and Plaintiffs state law claims. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/14/2015. (gmil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No. 3:14-70-MGL
West Columbia Police Dept., et al.,
Plaintiff Clyde Hunt, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial handling. On June 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, (“the Report”), (ECF No. 72), recommending that the Court grant Defendants’
Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 48 and 62). Objections to the Report were due by July
6, 2015. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for review by this
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the
record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 72), and finding no clear error
in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it by reference. Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment, (ECF Nos. 48 and 62), are thereby GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal claims and
Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
July 14, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
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?