Reeves v. Hampton Forest Apts et al
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as to 124 Report and Recommendation; DENYING 69 Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING 90 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Michael Ladale Reeves; GRANTING 78 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Parr, Hampton Forest Apts, Jenny Decker, Monument Real Estate Svcs; DISMISSING AS MOOT ALL PENDING NONDISPOSITIVE MOTIONS as follows: 65 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena, 66 Motion to Strike, 72 Motion for Contempt, 91 Motion for Contempt, AND 92 Motion for TRO filed by Michael Ladale Reeves; 97 Motion to Compel, 112 Motion to Exclude, AND 113 Motion to Strike filed by Betty Parr, Hampton Forest Apts, Jenny Decker, Monument Real Estate Svcs. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reeves state law claim of defamation, and this case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 1/23/17. (sfla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael Ladale Reeves,
Hampton Forest Apartments, Betty Parr,
Monument Real Estate Services, and
C.A. No. 6:16-715-HMH-KFM
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Michael Ladale Reeves (“Reeves”) alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Fair Housing
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and
state law claims of harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and defamation. Magistrate Judge
McDonald recommends denying Reeves’ motions for summary judgment and for default
judgment and granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Reeves filed several sets of objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections
to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the
recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,
94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Reeves’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. The magistrate judge further recommends that the court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim for defamation. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” “[U]nder the
authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), authorizing a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction, a district court has inherent power to dismiss the case or, in cases removed from
State court, to remand, provided the conditions set forth in § 1367(c) for declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction have been met.” Hinson v. Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617
(4th Cir. 2001). Based on the foregoing, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claim. Therefore, after a thorough review of the Report and the
record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Reeves’ motions for summary judgment, docket number 69, and for
default judgment, docket number 90, are denied. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, docket number 78, is
granted. It is further
ORDERED that the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reeves’
state law claim of defamation, and this case is dismissed. It is further
ORDERED that all pending nondispositive motions, docket numbers 65, 66, 72, 91, 92,
97, 112, and 113, are dismissed as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
January 23, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?