Battle v. Steinburg et al

Filing 68

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the recommendation and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 66 ) herein by specific reference. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60 ) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57 ) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/17/2017. (mcot, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Julian De’Andre Battle,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Laura Jones,
Defendant.

) Civil Action No. 6:15-4960-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Julian De’Andre Battle (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 57) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60). On December
20, 2016, Magistrate Judge West issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment be denied, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
be granted. (ECF No. 66.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he
failed to do so. (ECF No. 66 at 18.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so
expired on January 6, 2017.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report 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 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, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and to evince no clear error.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation and incorporates the Report herein
by specific reference. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 17, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.