Mosley v. Cofield et al

Filing 97

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 94 Report and Recommendations. the Court ACCEPTS the Report. [Doc. 94].Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 63] is DENIED; Defendant Richards Motion for Summary Judgmen t [Doc. 64] is GRANTED; Plaintiffs Motion for Monetary Damages [Doc. 71] is DENIED; Defendant Cofields Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 74] is GRANTED; andPlaintiffs Motion for Hearing [Doc. 78] is DENIED.United States District JudgeGreenville, South CarolinaApril 25, 20123. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/25/2012. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Bobby Mosley,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Lt. Chrissie Cofield; Lt. Kenneth Richards, )
a/k/a Richards; Ricky Chastain, a/k/a Ricky )
Castin,1
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 6:11-cv-01542-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Doc. 94], filed on March 30, 2012, recommending that the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 63], be denied, Defendant Lt. Kenneth Richard’s (“Richards”)
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 64] be granted, Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Damages
[Doc. 71] be denied, Defendant Lt. Chrissie Cofield’s (“Cofield”) Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 74] be granted, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing [Doc. 78] be denied. Plaintiff brought this
action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged use of unnecessary deadly force
by Defendants Richards and Cofield. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation herein without a recitation.

1

On September 1, 2011, Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendant Ricky Chastain (“Chastain”)
were dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. As a result,
Chastain was terminated as a party. [Doc. 36.] Thus, any reference to “Defendants” in this
Report and Recommendation is to Defendants Lt. Chrissie Cofield and Lt. Kenneth Richards.
1

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
94 - 1]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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.'" Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District
Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
After careful review of these documents, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. [Doc. 94].

2

Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge in the above captioned case, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 63] is DENIED; Defendant Richards’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 64] is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Damages [Doc. 71] is
DENIED; Defendant Cofield’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 74] is GRANTED; and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing [Doc. 78] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 25, 2012

3