Camden v. Greenville, City of et al

Filing 25

ORDER accepting 15 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process against the defendant Greenville Police Department. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/23/15. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Steven Blair Camden, #1552,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Greenville; Greenville Police
Department; Officer Shelton; Jimmy
Digirolamo; Mary Thomas; Benjamin
Thomas; Alia Paramore; Richard
Schwartz; Charlse Lane; Jamie Lepak;
B.W. Lusk; Diana M. Cadavid; P.C. Loyd;
Jeff Burdette; R.C. Hall; Adam Kearney;
Melissa Lawson; Ronald Powell; Benedict
Sambrano; Jessica Hawkins; Joshua
Tankersley; Nathan Smith; and Samuel
Holbrooks, each individual allegedly a
Greenville City Police Officer,
Defendants.
__________________________________

) Civil Action No. 6:14-4554-BHH
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Steven Blair Camden (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking punitive and
compensatory damages in the amount of $9,000,000.00 for claims of excessive force and
falsifying reports. (ECF. No. 1.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District
of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn
D. Austin for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 12, 2015.
(ECF No. 15.) In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process against the

Greenville Police Department. Id. Objections to the Report were due by January 29, 2015.
Plaintiff has filed no Objections.
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). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and
incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 15), by reference into this Order. It is therefore
ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process as against the defendant Greenville Police Department,
and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 23, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

2