Sgro v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

Filing 28

ORDER; it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 16 ) is adopted and incorporated herein; Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 20 ) are overruled; and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13 ) is denied without prejudice as it was prematurely filed. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/17/23.(rweb, )

4:23-cv-00096-BHH-KFM

Date Filed 05/17/23

Entry Number 28

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Michael Sgro,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Myrtle )
Beach Police Department, Myrtle Beach )
City Attorney, T. Anderson, J. Mackin, )
T. Anderson, Ofc. Reilley, Ofc. Falco, )
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-96-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Michael Sgro’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se civil
action seeking damages from Defendants. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
for preliminary review.
Plaintiff initially filed this action on January 9, 2023, and Magistrate Judge Kevin F.
McDonald issued an order on January 27, 2023, informing Plaintiff that the case was not
in proper form and instructing Plaintiff to submit certain documents and bring the case into
proper form. Plaintiff submitted certain documents on February 9, 2023, and also filed a
motion for summary judgment on February 17, 2023.
On February 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and explaining that initial review of
Plaintiff’s complaint remains ongoing and service of the complaint has not yet been
authorized. As such, the Magistrate Judge’s Report recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) as prematurely filed. Attached to the

4:23-cv-00096-BHH-KFM

Date Filed 05/17/23

Entry Number 28

Page 2 of 3

Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report
within fourteen days of receiving a copy.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 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).
On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report. After a careful review of Plaintiff’s objections, however, the Court finds them
without merit. Importantly, nowhere does Plaintiff specifically object to the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was filed prematurely. Rather,
Plaintiff’s objections simply repeat his allegations and refer to unrelated matters.
Ultimately, after de novo review, the Court fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied as prematurely filed. As the
Magistrate Judge points out in the Report, initial review of this case is ongoing pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, and Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet even been served on Defendants.
2

4:23-cv-00096-BHH-KFM

Date Filed 05/17/23

Entry Number 28

Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No.
16) is adopted and incorporated herein; Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 20) are overruled;
and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is denied without prejudice as
it was prematurely filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
May 17, 2023
Charleston, South Carolina

3