Murphy Taylor v. Columbia, City of et al

Filing 48

ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 41 Report and Recommendation and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 18 motion to dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Teres a Wilson, David Hatcher, and Stacey Harris and individual capacity claims against Wilson and Hatcher are dismissed. However, the 41 motion to dismiss is denied as to the defendants' other ground. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr on 11/13/2020. (mmcd)

3:20-cv-01275-JFA-PJG

Date Filed 11/13/20

Entry Number 48

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor,

C/A No. 3:20-cv-01275-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,
v.
City of Columbia; Teresa Wilson, City
Manager; David Hatcher, Chief Code
Enforcement Officer; Stacy Harris, Code
Enforcement Officer,

ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff, Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting several violations of her constitutional rights. In lieu of
answering Plaintiff’s complaint, the Defendants collectively filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No.
18). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), all
pretrial proceedings, including the instant motion to dismiss, were referred to the
Magistrate Judge for initial review.
After reviewing the Motion to dismiss and all relevant submissions, the Magistrate
Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). (ECF No. 41). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that

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)(d) (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).

3:20-cv-01275-JFA-PJG

Date Filed 11/13/20

Entry Number 48

Page 2 of 3

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied in part and granted in part. 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.
Plaintiff and Defendants were advised of their right to object to the Report, which
was entered on the docket on October 22, 2020. Id. The Magistrate Judge required
objections, if any, to be filed by November 5, 2020. Id. None of the parties submitted any
objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, 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).
Here, each party has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report
indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants’ motion to dismiss
should be denied in part and granted in part.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 41). Consequently, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is granted in
2

3:20-cv-01275-JFA-PJG

Date Filed 11/13/20

Entry Number 48

Page 3 of 3

part and denied in part. Specifically, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Teresa
Wilson, David Hatcher, and Stacy Harris and individual capacity claims against Wilson
and Hatcher are dismissed. However, the motion to dismiss is denied as to the defendants’
other grounds. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 13, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3