Mayo et al v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 78

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 70 Report and Recommendation, granting 60 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Treyor Brown, Jason Tassone, denying as moot 68 Motion to Strike filed by Treyor Brown, Jason Tassone. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/1/2017. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Mr. Ray Mayo, #363744, and
Mrs. Certoya Mayo,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina; Sumter County
)
Sheriff’s Dept.; Officer Sgt. Jason Tassone; )
and Officer Sgt. Treyor Brown,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-02698-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiffs Mr. Ray Mayo and Mrs. Certoya Mayo (collectively “Plaintiffs”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
Defendants Sgt. Jason Tassone and Sgt. Treyor Brown (collectively “Defendants”) violated
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest. Thereafter, Defendants
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting that Plaintiffs’ action be dismissed. (ECF No.
60.)

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

Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 70), filed on December 29, 2016, recommending that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.”
Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
271 (1976)). Moreover, the court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
a report and recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject,
1

or modify, in whole or in part, a magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Furthermore, objections to a report and recommendation must
specifically identify portions of the report and the basis for those objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiffs were notified of their right to file timely objections to the Report. (ECF No. 70.)
Plaintiffs filed untimely objections to the Report on January 19, 2017. (ECF No. 75.) However, pro se
pleadings are accorded liberal construction and are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted
by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Notably, Plaintiffs’ objections were
filed merely one day after the Clerk of Court terminated the deadline for objections. Therefore, the
court accepts Plaintiffs’ objections.
In their objections, Plaintiffs fail to specifically identify portions of the report to which they
object. Instead, Plaintiffs generally allege that the Magistrate Judge “is unfair and prejudice towards
the plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 75 at 2.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs assert that the Magistrate Judge has failed
to respond to all motions that Plaintiffs previously filed with court regarding this matter. Specifically,
Plaintiffs state that “…the magistrate judge never responded to any of Ray Mayo’s motions filed at the
U.S. States District Court for the District of South Carolina. To this day there has not been any response
to his motions.” (ECF No. 75 at 2.)
After a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds
that the Magistrate Judge has not unfairly prejudiced Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed numerous, repetitious
motions with the court regarding this matter. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the Magistrate Judge
has timely responded to each and every motion that Plaintiffs filed. In addition, the court finds that
the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report that accurately summarizes the facts and the law.
Furthermore, the Report contains no clear error.

2

Therefore, the court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 70.) For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 60) is granted and this action is dismissed.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
March 1, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ response to summary judgment as untimely. (ECF
No. 68.) In light of the dismissal of this action, such motion is denied as moot.
1

3