Wright v. SC Highway Patrol et al

Filing 91

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 87 ) is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38 ) is DENIED as moot and Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct his Complaint (ECF No. 77 ) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/6/2016. (mcot, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
Civil Action No.: 4:15-2442-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
vs.
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
Officer BJ Sawyer, individually and in )
)
their official capacities; Officer 2
)
Unknown, individually and in their
)
official capacities
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
Marcus Dwain Wright,

Plaintiff Marcus Dwain Wright (“Plaintiff”), an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, brought this action pursuant to Title 42, United States Code,
Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.)1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D.
West for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Officer 2 Unknown’s motion to
dismiss, (ECF No. 38), and Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct his Complaint, (ECF No.
77). On June 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge West issued a Report recommending that
Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot and Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct
his Complaint be granted. (ECF No. 87.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation
and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 87-1.) Defendant filed no
objections and the time for doing so expired on July 5, 2016.

1
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 24, 2015, (ECF No. 8).

1

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct a 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.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38) is DENIED as moot and Plaintiff’s motion to
amend/correct his Complaint (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
July 6, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2