Murphy v. Fields et al
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 20 Report and Recommendation, granting Defendants Long and Webb's 10 partial motion to dismiss, dismissing any § 1983 claims against Defendants Long and Webb based on a theory of bystander liability with prejudice, and referring the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 3/21/2018. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Shakara Murphy,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2914-CMC
Plaintiff,
vs.
OPINION AND ORDER
Benjamin Fields; Leon Lott; Richland
County Sheriff’s Department; Richland
County; Richland School District Two;
Robert Long; KaRon Webb,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Defendants Robert Long and KaRon Webb’s partial
motion to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Long and Webb under
a bystander liability theory should be dismissed. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the motion (ECF No. 11) and Defendants Long and Webb filed a reply (ECF No.
12). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on dispositive issues. On March 5, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending Long and Webb’s motion to dismiss be granted as to any
§1983 claims against them based on a theory of bystander liability. ECF No. 20. The Magistrate
Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report
and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. No party has filed objections and the time for
doing so has passed.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection
is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made
by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the Report. Accordingly, the court
adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. Defendants
Long and Webb’s partial motion to dismiss is granted, and any § 1983 claims against Defendants
Long and Webb based on a theory of bystander liability are hereby dismissed with prejudice1. This
matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
March 21, 2018
1
As controlling precedent forecloses § 1983 claims based on a theory of bystander liability against
Defendants Long and Webb, no amendment to the Complaint can allege a viable claim under this
theory.
2
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?