Stephens et al v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
Filing
28
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court adopts the Report andRecommendation (ECF No. 26 ). Thus, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 6 , 13 , 15 ) are denied.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr. on 06/29/2018. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Kaseem Stephens,
Korell Battle,
Lorenzo Herio, and
Dayquan Robinson,
C/A No. 4:17-3482-JFA-TER
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
South Carolina Department of Corrections;
Warden Leroy Cartledge, individually and in
his official capacity as warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution, and
Warden Michael Stephan, individually and in
his official capacity as warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution,
Defendants.
The four Plaintiffs (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are inmates in the South Carolina Department
of Corrections (“SCDC”). They each allege constitutional violations under pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law claims under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-7810 et seq. (ECF No. 1-1).
On November 7, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas. (ECF No.
1-1). On December 28, 2017, the Defendants removed the case. (ECF No. 1). On December 29,
2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 6). On January 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). On January 24, 2018, Defendant Warden Cartledge filed a
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13), and on January 25, 2018, Defedendant SCDC filed a motion to
1
dismiss and/or partial dismissal (ECF No. 15). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for Review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be denied.
(ECF No. 26 p. 9). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
No objections to the Report were filed. A district court is only required to conduct a de
novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is
made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Va. Bd. of Prob. & Parole,
974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s
Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 26). Thus, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 6, 13, 15) are
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 29, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
1
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The 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 of those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which specific objection is 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
2
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?