Reaves v. Rhodes et al

Filing 34

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judges Report is ACCEPTED 15 , defendants objections are OVERRULED 19 , 24 & 33 ; and the Complaint in this case is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 07/12/2011. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, Ph.D.,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
Sherry R. Rhodes, individually and in her official capacity as
Clerk of Court for Marion County; Mark W. Richardson,
individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Marion
County; Levon Nichols, individually and in his official
capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Marion County, aka Levern
Nichols; Albert Woodberry, individually and in his official
capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Marion County; Mitche
McCaskill, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy
Sheriff of Marion County; C.W. Johnson, individually and in
his official capacity as Marion County Jailor; Tim Harper,
individually and in his official capacity as County
Administrator; John Q. Atkinson, individually and in his
official capacity as a member of Marion County Council;
Eloise W. Rogers, individually and in her official capacity as
a member of Marion County Council; Tom Shaw,
individually and in his official capacity as a member of
Marion County Council; Allen Floyd, individually and in his
official capacity as a member of Marion County Council;
Milton Troy, individually and in his official capacity as a
member of Marion County Council; Pearly Britt, individually
and in her official capacity as a member of Marion County
Council; Elista H. Smith, individually and in her official
capacity as a member of Marion County Council; A. E.
Morehead, individually and in his official capacity as Family
Court Judge,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 4:10-3234-TLW-TER

ORDER

Defendants.
)
________________________________________________)
This is a civil action filed pro se by Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, Ph.D. (Plaintiff) against
the Clerk of Court for Marion County, South Carolina, the Sheriff of Marion County and three of
his deputies, the Marion County Jailer, the Marion County Administrator, several members of the

1

Marion County Council, and a Family Court Judge of South Carolina’s Twelfth Judicial Circuit
(comprising Marion and Florence Counties) in Florence, South Carolina. This matter is now before
the undersigned 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 pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In his Report, Magistrate Judge Rogers
recommends that the Complaint in this case be partially dismissed, without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process, as to the following Defendants: Sherry R. Rhodes, Tim Harper, John
Q. Atkinson, Eloise W. Rogers, Tom Shaw, Allen Floyd, Milton Troy, Pearly Britt, Elista H. Smith,
and A.E. Morehead. The Report further recommends that the Complaint should be served on the
following Defendants: Mark W. Richardson, Levon Nichols also known as Levern Nichols, Albert
Woodberry, Mitche McCaskill, and C.W. Johnson. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report (Doc.
# 19) and a “motion to amend objections to the Report and Recommendation.”1 (Doc. # 24).
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
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).

1

The Court grants this motion and has considered this filing in addition to Plaintiff’s
initial objections to the Report. The Court has also considered Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 filing.
(Doc. # 33).
2

In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ACCEPTED (Doc. # 15), defendant’s objections are OVERRULED (Docs. # 19, # 24 & # 33); and
the Complaint in this case is PARTIALLY DISMISSED, without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process, as to the following Defendants: Sherry R. Rhodes, Tim Harper, John Q.
Atkinson, Eloise W. Rogers, Tom Shaw, Allen Floyd, Milton Troy, Pearly Britt, Elista H. Smith, and
A.E. Morehead.

The Complaint should be served on the following Defendants: Mark W.

Richardson, Levon Nichols also known as Levern Nichols, Albert Woodberry, Mitche McCaskill,
and C.W. Johnson.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
July 12, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

3