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)

Download PDF
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?