Ham v. Fuentes et al

Filing 46

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 45 ] of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary j udgment [ECF No. 33 ] is GRANTED and that Plaintiffs' federal law claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims and DISMISSES the state law claims without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/6/2016. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Jon Edward Ham and Charles Fuentes,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Thomas McFadden,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-00372-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiffs Jon Edward Ham and Charles Fuentes, represented by counsel, filed this action against
Defendant Thomas McFadden alleging violations of their constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and also asserting state law claims. See ECF No. 1. Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. See ECF No. 33. The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, 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. 45. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
and dismiss this case. R & R at 1, 29.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and 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 R & R 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 parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired. See ECF

No. 45 (requiring objections to be filed by July 1, 2016). In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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 Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 45] of the Magistrate Judge. It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 33] is GRANTED
and that Plaintiffs’ federal law claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and DISMISSES the state law
claims without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
July 6, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2