Black v. Masano

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Report (ECF No. 8 ), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the case is PARTIALLY SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice as to the claims of fa lse arrest, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of property. The Plaintiff's case may proceed on the claim of deliberate indifference to medical care. The court authorized issuance and service of process on Defendant solely on the claim of deliberate indifference of medical care. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 01/09/2018. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
David Allen Black, #1067536011220,
Plaintiff,
v.
John F. Marano, IV,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-03265-TMC-TER
ORDER

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action
seeking relieve pursuant to Title 42, United States Code Section 1983. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate
judge for pretrial handling.

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the district court partially summarily dismiss
the Complaint without prejudice as to the counts of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and
deprivation of property. (ECF No. 8 at 6). The Report notes that in a separately docketed order,
the court had authorized the service of process on the Defendant solely on the claim of deliberate
indifference to medical care. (ECF No. 8 at 6–7).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file

objections to the Report (ECF No. 8 at 8); however, Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the
time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
1

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 and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 8), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the case is PARTIALLY SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice as to
the claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of property. The Plaintiff’s case
may proceed on the claim of deliberate indifference to medical care. The court authorized
issuance and service of process on Defendant solely on the claim of deliberate indifference of
medical care.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 9, 2018
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2