Howard et al v. Unknown Driver et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 14 Plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss its claims against SCDMH and SCDC; dismissing with prejudice the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against SCDMH and SCDC; a nd granting 14 Plaintiffs' motion to remand their claims against Jarvis Omar Hayes. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 6 is terminated as moot. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/29/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Ciera Howard; Tina Sexton; and
Misty McNabb,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Unknown Driver;
)
John Doe;
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Mental Health;
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections, )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-02096-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiffs brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1,
1.1)

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 19), filed on August 28, 2015, recommending that:
•

Plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss its claims against Defendants South Carolina
Department of Mental Health (“SCDMH”) and South Carolina Department of
Corrections (“SCDC”) (ECF No. 14) be granted;

•

Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants SCDMH and SCDC be dismissed
with prejudice; and

•

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand their claims against Jarvis Omar Hayes—the defendant
formerly identified as Unknown Driver John Doe—(ECF No. 14) be granted under 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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).
Petitioner 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 September 14, 2015.
(ECF No. 19.) Petitioner 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s
waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
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. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). It is therefore ORDERED that:

2

•

Plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss its claims against SCDMH and SCDC (ECF No.
14) be GRANTED;

•

Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants SCDMH and SCDC be
DISMISSED with prejudice; and

•

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand their claims against Jarvis Omar Hayes—the defendant
formerly identified as Unknown Driver John Doe—(ECF No. 14) be GRANTED under
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 6) therefore is rendered
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
October 29, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

3