Causey v. Myrtle Beach, City of et al

Filing 71

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 69 is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant Male Employees Amended Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 54 , is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant Male Employee is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 04/10/2014. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Kathryn Floyd Causey,
Plaintiff,
v.
Officer M. Paitsel; Officer K.
Ballard-Wolff; Diane L. Pieterse,
Sergeant; Male Employee Belk,
Unidentified,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-0970-RBH-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff Kathryn Floyd Causey (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action on April
11, 2013, alleging constitutional and state tort law claims against the above-captioned Defendants.1
See Compl., ECF No. 1.

On July 17, 2013, Defendant Male Employee Belk, Unidentified

(“Defendant Male Employee”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 33. Plaintiff timely
responded to the motion on July 30, 2013, requesting that Defendant’s motion be denied. See ECF
No. 39. Defendant Male Employee then filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss on October 1, 2013,
see ECF No. 54, which mooted the previous motion and response, see Text Order, ECF No. 55.
Plaintiff filed a timely response to the Amended Motion on October 23, 2013, requesting that the
Amended Motion be denied. See ECF No. 59. The matter is before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) 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. See R & R, ECF No. 69. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court grant Defendant Male Employee’s Amended Motion and that he be
dismissed without prejudice. See id. at 5.
The Court previously dismissed, without prejudice, Defendants City of Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle
Beach Police Department, and Belk by Order dated July 2, 2013. See Order, ECF No. 30 at 2.

1

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).
No 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 recommendations. 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 Defendant Male Employee’s Amended Motion to
Dismiss, ECF No. 54, is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant Male Employee is DISMISSED,
without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
April 10, 2014

3