Curry v. Atlantic Beach, The Town of et al

Filing 73

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 65 : The Court adopts the recommendation and incorporates the Report herein by specific reference. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintif f's federal claims; the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims; this case is dismissed in its entirety.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 02/15/2017. (dsto, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Paul J. Curry,
Plaintiff,
vs.
The Town of Atlantic Beach, a political
subdivision of the State of South Carolina,
and The Town of Atlantic Beach Police
Dept.,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No. 4:15-3327-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Paul J. Curry (“Plaintiff”), who is represented by counsel, brought this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, false imprisonment, conversion, and abuse of process.
(ECF No. 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 Thomas E. Rogers
for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 37). On January 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Rogers issued a Report
recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to
Plaintiff’s federal claims, that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and that this case be dismissed in
its entirety. (ECF No. 65 at 25.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 65-1.) The time for filing objections was
set to expire on February 14, 2017. On that date, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend the
objections deadline. (ECF No. 69.) The Court denied the Motion to Extend on February

15, 2017, due to Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate good cause under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6(b). (ECF No. 72.) Accordingly, no objections have been filed.
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 (1976).
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report 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, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and to evince no clear error.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation and incorporates the Report herein
by specific reference. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal claims; the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims; this case is dismissed in its
entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks____
United States District Judge
February 15, 2017
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.