Abraham v. Brayboy et al

Filing 77

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 39 . The Court ADOPTS the R & R as the order of the Court and DENIES Defendants' first motion for summary judgment without prejudice as moot (Dkt. No. 29). This order has no bearing on Defendants' second motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 62). Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/1/2016. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Frenchis Gerald Abraham,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lt. Brayboy, Lt. Cedric June, Ofc. Xavier )
Burroughs, Cpl. Frank Hickman, Ofc. J.
)
Remond, Ofc. J. Barr, Sgt. Keith McBride, )
Ofc. Jennifer Macaulay, Ofc. K. King,
)
Ofc. Finnley, LPN Courtney Dixon, Sgt.
)
Martha Ramsay, Lt. Francis Bowman,
)
Ofc. R. Cain, Ofc. Gerline Johnson,
)
Cpt. P. Bells, Ofc. Atkinson, and Sgt.
)
Daniel Cain,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Civil Action No.: 6: 14-cv-1844-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 39). For the reasons below, this Court adopts the R & R as the
order of the Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." ld
Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 12, 2014.

(Dkt. No.1).

On April 24, 2015,

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that they had not been timely served

with copies of summonses or complaints. (Dkt. No. 29-1). The Magistrate Judge issued an
R & R recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment due to insufficient service
be denied.

(Dkt. No. 39).

Since this R & R was issued, the parties have addressed the

underlying service issues to some extent, and Defendants have filed a second motion for
summary judgment based, at least in part, on this updated information (Dkt. No. 62).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R & R as the order of the Court and DENIES Defendants'
first motion for summary judgment without prejudice as moot (Dkt. No. 29). This order has no
bearing on Defendants' second motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 62).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Ge el
United States Dist ict Court Judge
March _(_, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

2