Johnson v. North Myrtle Beach, City of

Filing 57

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 51 ). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 23 ) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/13/2012. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Carol Johnson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
City of North Myrtle Beach,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:09-cv-2530-TLW-TER

ORDER
On September 28, 2009, the defendants removed this civil action to this Court asserting
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III to whom this case had
previously been assigned. (Doc. # 51). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
District Court grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 23) and that this case be
dismissed. (Doc. # 51). The plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 52). The defendant
submitted a reply to the plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. # 55). In conducting this review, the Court
applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of
the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.
The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
1

entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the
Report. (Doc. # 51). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 23) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
March 13, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

2