Stackhouse v. Dillon County Sheriff's Department et al
ORDER: The Court adopts the Magistrate's Report (ECF No. 44 ) and incorporates it herein, and the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30 ), thereby ending this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/7/2017. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dillon County Sheriff’s Department
and Dillon County,
Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-3690-BHH
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Christopher Stackhouse’s (“Plaintiff”
or “Stackhouse”) complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during the
course of his arrest and subsequent imprisonment. Plaintiff also asserts South Carolina
state law claims against Defendants for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and
gross negligence. On September 12, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on September 29, 2016.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary
determinations. On May 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s claims and recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Dillon County Sheriff’s Department
and Dillon County fail for several reasons, as outlined in her Report, and the Magistrate
Judge also concluded that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice to them being filed in
state court. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the
right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a
copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims. The Court also
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses
those without prejudice to them being filed in state court.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 44) and
incorporates it herein, and the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 30), thereby ending this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 7, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?