Brooks v. Holly Hill Police Office et al

Filing 35

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 33) and summarily dismisses Defendants Judge Chasity Sanders Avinger, Holly Hill Police Office, Berkeley County Sheriffs O ffice, and Orangeburg County Sheriff's Office as Defendants. The Court also summarily dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendant Yacobozzi for false arrest, false imprisonment, and illegal search and seizure. The Amended Complaint shall be served on Defendants Yacobozzi, Deter, and Doe. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/4/2024. (agaz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Altony Brooks,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Holly Hill Police Office, Cpl. Yacabozzi, )
Joshua H. Deter, Orangeburg County )
Sheriff’s Office, Berkeley County
)
Sheriff’s Office, Chasity Sanders
)
Avenger, John Doe of Orangeburg,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-3283-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Altony Brooks’ (“Plaintiff”) pro se
amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) 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 review.
On May 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
(“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that certain Defendants and claims be
summarily dismissed. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended: that Defendant
Judge Avinger be summarily dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity; that any claims
for false arrest, false imprisonment, and/or illegal search and seizure against Defendant
Yacabozzi be dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); that any § 1983
claims against Defendants Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, Orangeburg County Sheriff’s
Office, and Holly Hill Police Office be dismissed because these Defendants are not
“persons” subject to suit under § 1983; that Plaintiff’s claims under the South Carolina Tort
Claims Act against Defendants Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office and Orangeburg County

Sheriff’s Office be dismissed on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity; that Plaintiff’s
claims under the South Carolina Constitution be dismissed; and that Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Holly Hill Police Office under South Carolina law for assault and battery,
outrage, and corporal punishment be dismissed because they are subject to the limitations
of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. (ECF No. 33 at 4-12.) Attached to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the
Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections to the
Report have been filed.
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).
Here, because no objections have been 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 no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
2

analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 33)
and summarily dismisses Defendants Judge Chasity Sanders Avinger, Holly Hill
Police Office, Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, and Orangeburg County Sheriff’s
Office as Defendants. The Court also summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims
against Defendant Yacobozzi for false arrest, false imprisonment, and illegal search
and seizure. The Amended Complaint shall be served on Defendants Yacobozzi,
Deter, and Doe.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 4, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

3