Tucker v. Shelton et al

Filing 60

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 58 . Defendant Sheltons motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33 ) is DENIED and Defendant LCSOs motion for summary judgment as to the state law claims of malicious prosecutio n and abuse of process (ECF No. 33 ) are DENIED. Furthermore, Defendant LCSOs motion for summary judgment as to the state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (ECF No. 33 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/5/2017. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Antonio Tucker,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jawarski Shelton and
Laurens County Sheriff’s Office
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00313-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) asserting a Fourth
Amendment claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Shelton and state law claims
of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
against Defendant Laurens County Sherriff’s Office (“LCSO”). Defendants subsequently filed a
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial
handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that Defendant Shelton’s motion for summary judgment be denied and that
Defendant LCSO’s motion for summary judgment as to state law claims of malicious
prosecution and abuse of process be denied. (ECF No. 58). The Report further recommends that
Defendant LCSO’s motion for summary judgment as to the state law claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress be granted. (ECF No. 58). Neither party filed objections to the
Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
1

adopting the Report. 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).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 58), which is incorporated herein by
reference. Accordingly, Defendant Shelton’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) is
DENIED and Defendant LCSO’s motion for summary judgment as to the state law claims of
malicious prosecution and abuse of process (ECF No. 33) are DENIED. Furthermore, Defendant
LCSO’s motion for summary judgment as to the state law claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
December 5, 2017

2