Canada v. Stirling et al

Filing 80

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the 78 Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 63 is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 1/8/2019. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Kelvin A. Canada,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bryan P. Stirling, Michael McCall,
)
Joette Scarborough, Willie Davis,
)
Andrea Thompson, Vaugh Jackson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 5:17-cv-02785-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint and Supplemental Briefing
alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ECF No. 1. In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On July 18, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 63.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition. ECF No. 68. On December 17, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that summary judgment be granted.
ECF No. 78. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements
for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
Plaintiff has filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [63] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 8, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina

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