Richards v. Robinson et al

Filing 42

ORDER adopting 39 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that Defendant Stephen Dauway's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Defendant Donald Robinson's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment be granted on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, and this matter be remanded as to Plaintiff's claim for negligent deprivation of property against Defendant Donald Robinson. Please note it is the responsibility of the attorney's to supplement the state court record with all documents filed in the federal court. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/1/2016. (mwal) Modified to edit text on 2/2/2016 (mwal).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Paul Lewis Richards,
Plaintiff,
v.
Donald Robinson and Stephen Dauway,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.3:14-cv-04234-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012). (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 39), filed on December 9, 2015, recommending that:
•

Defendant Stephen Dauway’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24) be granted,

•

Defendant Donald Robinson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24) on
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act be
granted, and

•

this matter be remanded as to Plaintiff’s claim for negligent deprivation of property
against Defendant Donald Robinson.

The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court
incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only
a recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weightthe
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file an objection to the Report “within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by December 29, 2015.
(ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff filed no objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s
note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and that there is no clear error. The
court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39).

It is

therefore ORDERED that Defendant Stephen Dauway’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 24) be GRANTED, Defendant Donald Robinson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 24) on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act be
GRANTED, and this matter be REMANDED as to Plaintiff’s claim for negligent deprivation of
property against Defendant Donald Robinson.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 1, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina