Dowdle et al v. Blanton et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 34 Motion to Consolidate Cases; adopting 46 Report and Recommendations. These matters are recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/8/2010.(mbro, ) Modified on 6/9/2010 to edit text (mbro, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA J o h n Ray Dowdle, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v s. ) ) Sheriff Bill Blanton, et al., ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________)

C/A No. 6:10-0159-MBS C/A No. 6:10-0390-MBS ORDER

P l a i n t i ff John Ray Dowdle is a pretrial detainee at the Cherokee County Detention Center in G a ffn e y, South Carolina. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 o n January 27, 2010, alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated in various respects. S e e C/A No. 6:10-159-MBS. Plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint containing similar allegations on F e b ru a ry 18, 2010. See C/A No. 6:10-390-MBS. These matters are before the court on motions to consolidate filed by Defendants on April 27, 2 0 1 0 (Entry 34 in C/A No. 6:10-159; Entry 18 in C/A No. 6:10-390). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge W illia m M. Catoe for pretrial handling. On May 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report of M a gis tr a te Judge in which he recommended that the motions to consolidate be granted. Plaintiff file d no objections to the Report of Magistrate Judge. T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report of Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the

M a gis tra te Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo r e v i e w , but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in o rd e r to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and adopts the Report of Magistrate Judge.

Defendants' motions to consolidate (Entry 34 in C/A No. 6:10-159; Entry 18 in C/A No. 6:10-390)
a re granted. These matters are recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. I T IS SO ORDERED.

/ s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina J u n e 8, 2010.

2