Haygood v. West Columbia Police Dept et al
Filing
46
ORDER accepting 43 Report and Recommendation. The Defendants' 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 8/26/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Vernon Lee Haygood,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case Number 3:14-cv-3886-TLW
The City of West Columbia; John King;
William Norris; Officer Cubelli,1
Defendants.
ORDER
On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff Vernon Lee Haygood filed this civil action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). The matter now
comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges (ECF No. 43) to whom this case was assigned. In the Report,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. (See id., ECF No. 33) Objections were due by August 3, 2015. Plaintiff has filed no
objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the Report, 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).
1
It appears that the Defendant Plaintiff identifies as “Officer Quebelly” is correctly identified as Officer Cubelli.
1
This Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report (ECF No. 43) is ACCEPTED. The
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 26, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
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?