Green v. Richland County Election & Voter Registration et al
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 54 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Richland County Election & Voter Registration, Billy Way, Jr, South Carolina Election Commission, Rokey Sul eman; denying 49 Motion for TRO, Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed by Cameo Aleece Green. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this Court declines to exercise supplementaljurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 4/13/2018. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Cameo Aleece Green,
Richland County Election & Voter
Registration; Rokey Suleman, as
Director; South Carolina Election
Commission; Billy Way, Jr., as Chair
C/A No. 3:17-cv-00983-DCC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this pro se action claiming the election for a Richland County Council
Seat in 2016 was mishandled by Defendants. ECF No. 1. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Restraining Order and Declaratory Judgment, ECF No. 49, and Defendants
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 44. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) on February 22, 2018, recommending that the Court grant
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining
Order and Declaratory Judgment. ECF No. 54. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report.
ECF No. 56.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71. The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report
that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the
Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections,
the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n 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.’”
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition)).
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court finds that Plaintiff makes a
generic objection that there remains one or more genuine issues of material fact as to her
claims and recounts the arguments made in her Response in Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 48, and her Motion for Restraining Order and
Declaratory Judgment, ECF No. 49. Objections to the Report must be specific, and
“[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further juridical
review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district
judge.” Davenport v. Rosotti, No. 9:06-0889-HMH, 2006 WL 1663794, at *1 (D.S.C. June
13, 2006) (citing United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984)).
However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the Report de novo and adopts the well-reasoned Report by reference
in this Order. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 44, is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining Order and Declaratory Judgment, ECF
No. 49, is DENIED. It is further ordered that this Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 13, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina
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?