Causey v. Myrtle Beach, City of et al

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 20 of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendants City of Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach PoliceDepartment, and Belk are DIMISSED from this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 07/02/2013. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Kathryn Floyd Causey,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina; City of Myrtle Beach
Police Department; Officer M.
Paitsel; Officer K. Ballard-Wolf;
Dianne L. Pieterse, Sergeant; Male
Employee Belk, unidentified, and
Belk,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00970-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Kathryn Floyd Causey, proceeding pro se, filed this action, alleging constitutional
and state tort law claims against the above-captioned Defendants. The matter is now 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 recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants City of Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach Police Department, and Belk.
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 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 Defendants City of Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach Police
Department, and Belk are DIMISSED from this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
July 2, 2013

2