Seabrooke v. Barnwell County Detention Center

Filing 33

ORDER RULING 30 Report and Recommendation: The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that the failure to protect claims against Defendant M iller should go forward and all remaining claims be dismissed. The Court adopts the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 30) as the order of the Court. All claims except the failure to protect claims against Defendant Miller are dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process.AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/10/2025. (ltap, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
John Seabrooke,
v.

Case No. 6:24-cv-5120-RMG

Plaintiff,
ORDER

Tahira Thomas, C/O Miller, Sgt. Priester,
Defendants.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge
recommending that the Court summarily dismiss the claims asserted against Defendants Thomas
and Priester, leaving only the failure to protect claim against Defendant Miller to proceed with
issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 30). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the claims
against Defendants Thomas and Priester be dismissed with prejudice without further leave to
amend and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff was advised he had 14 days to file
objections to the R & R and if he failed to do so the R & R would be reviewed for clear error and
he would have no right to file an appeal of the District Court’s order. (Id. at 10). No timely
objections were filed.
Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made,
and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
1

§ 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Discussion
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, alleges he was raped by his cellmate and reported this
incident to Defendant Miller. He alleges Defendant Miller ignored the report and he was raped
again by his cellmate. Plaintiff reports he was then transported to the hospital. He asserts a
variety of injuries from the sexual assault. The Magistrate Judge recommended the Plaintiff’s
failure to protect claim against Defendant Miller proceed to the issuance and service of process.
The Magistrate Judge recommended the claims against Defendants Thomas and Priester
be summarily dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient information to state a cause
of action against either of these defendants. The Magistrate Judge also recommended the
summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims to have his pretrial detention be terminated and his
criminal charges dismissed, citing the well settled Supreme Court authorities of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994) and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the factual and legal issues in
this matter and correctly concluded that the failure to protect claim against Defendant Miller
should go forward and all remaining claims be dismissed. The Court adopts the R & R of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 30) as the order of the Court. All claims except the failure to protect

2

claim against Defendant Miller are dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend and without
issuance and service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/ Richard M. Gergel_
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
March 10, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina

3