Swaringen v. Arial et al

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 34 is adopted and incorporated by reference. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 05/23/2011. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Joseph Martin Swaringen,
Plaintiff,

C.A. No.: 4:10-cv-02825-RBH-TER

vs.
Robert Arial, Solicitor Greenville County;
County Administrator, Greenville County;
Greenville Count Detention Center; Scott
Bodiford, Jail Administrator; Director
Home Incarceration Program, 11/03/0811/30/09; Corporal Whitner; Corporal
Childress; Corporal Cook; Greenville
County Solicitor’s Office; James Dorreity,
Ass. County Administrator Dept. of Public
Safety; Director Dept. of Public Safety,
Greenville County;
Defendants.

ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his rights while he was a pretrial detainee in the Greenville County Detention
Center. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to

1

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 with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence
of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005)
stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Amended Complaint is partially dismissed, without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process, as to the following Defendants: Robert Ariail, Solicitor
Greenville County; County Administrator, Greenville County; Director Dept. of Public Safety,
Greenville County; Greenville County Detention Center; Director, Home Incarceration Program
11/03/08-11/30/09; Corporal Cook; and Greenville County Solicitor’s Office.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 23, 2011

3