Epps v. Williams
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 51 . The Defendants amended motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 41, is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED, without prejudice Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/20/2017. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ELBERT L. EPPS a/k/a ELBERT LEE EPPS, §
SGT. MS. WILLIAMS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-03400-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United
States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant’s amended motion for summary judgment, ECF
No. 41, be granted. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. 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 to which specific objection is made, and the
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the Court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections
that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court reviews
only for clear error in the absence of a specific objection. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to
the Report, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.
See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on November 2, 2017, ECF No. 51, and the Clerk
of Court entered Plaintiff's objections to the Report on November 14, 2017, ECF No. 53. After
review of the record in this matter, including the pleadings, the Report, Plaintiff’s objections, and
the applicable law, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned analysis and
recommendation. The Court further holds Plaintiff’s objections are non-specific, and unrelated
to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Court also holds Plaintiff’s
objections fail to raise any legally meritorious issues in opposition to the Report, and Plaintiff’s
objections are thus without merit.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court Defendant’s amended motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 41, is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of November, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within 30 days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?