Hancock v. Pageland Police Department
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 99 ) herein by specific reference. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 91 ) is GRANTED and this case is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 08/02/2017. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Brian E. Hancock,
Larry Brown, Chief of Police, and Captain
) Civil Action No. 4:16-427-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging several violations of his constitutional rights. 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 July 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s claims and recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment and dismiss this case in its
entirety. (ECF No. 99.) 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. (ECF No. 99-1.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time
for doing so expired on July 31, 2017.
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 the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper
and to evince no clear error, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
Report (ECF No. 99) herein by specific reference. Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED and this case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 2, 2017
Charleston, 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?