Jones v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 55

ORDER adopting the 45 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Jones' actions against Defendant The Humane SPCA with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 11/9/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Quanjay Jaculb Jones,

C/A No. 3:16-706-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
State of South Carolina; The County of
Richland; The Humane SCPA,
Defendants.
Quanjay Jaculb Jones (“Jones”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and
1985, as well as a state law claim for gross negligence against the named defendants. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to the
Magistrate Judge. On March 3, 2016, Defendant Human Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (“SCPA”), filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 8). After Jones
amended the pleadings, SCPA renewed its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No.
22). Consequently, Jones responded to SCPA’s motion by consenting to the dismissal of the
federal law claims, without prejudice, and opposing the dismissal of the remaining state law claim.
(ECF No. 33).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that both Jones’ federal and state law claims against

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

SCPA should be dismissed with prejudice based on the expiration of the applicable limitations
period. (ECF No. 45). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on
this matter, and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Jones was
advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on August 29, 2016.
The Magistrate Judge gave Jones until September 15, 2016, to file objections. However, Jones
failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 45). Jones’ actions against SCPA in this case are dismissed with
prejudice based upon the applicable statute of limitations. The remaining actions against the State
of South Carolina and Richland County remain pending before the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 9, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2