Campbell v. Ingles Market et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 62 . Therefore, Campbells motions to amend (ECF Nos.114, 115) are GRANTED as to the proposed amendment alleging that Hammett arrestedCampbell without probable cause and overlooked evi dence that would have cleared him of allcrimes, in violation of his constitutional rights (ECF No. 120 at 5), and DENIED as to all other claims. In addition, Hammetts motion to dismiss (ECF No. 62) is DENIED AS MOOT as it responds to the original com plaint,2 and the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by Defendants Ingles Market, Folk, King, and Rainey is GRANTED. Further, Campbells motions to compel discovery form the individual defendants (ECF Nos. 94, 126,127) are now moot. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/26/2014. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Terry Douglas Campbell,
Ingles Market, Michael Christopher Folk,
Travis Todd King, Kennith Hammett,
Nathaniel Mark Rainey, and
John Allen Putnam,
Civil Action No. 7:13-1701-TMC-KFM
The plaintiff, Terry Douglas Campbell (“Campbell”), proceeding pro se, has brought
claims against the defendants arising out of a conflict over a package of meat that resulted in
Campbell’s arrest. 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 the court grant
Campbell’s motions to amend (ECF Nos. 114, 115) in part; deny Hammett’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 62) as moot; and grant the other defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30). Neither
Campbell nor the defendants have filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now
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, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
The Report was filed on January 31, 2014, and mailed to Campbell the same day. On February 4, 2014, Campbell
informed the court that he had a new address. In an abundance of caution, the court re-mailed the Report to
Campbell’s new address on February 4, 2014.
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 thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds no clear
error and, accordingly, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. In addition, the court notes
that, even if it did exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Campbell’s state law claims against
the individual defendants, state law would then predominate, and jurisdiction would not be
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Therefore, Campbell’s motions to amend (ECF Nos.
114, 115) are GRANTED as to the proposed amendment alleging that Hammett arrested
Campbell without probable cause and overlooked evidence that would have cleared him of all
crimes, in violation of his constitutional rights (ECF No. 120 at 5), and DENIED as to all other
claims. In addition, Hammett’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 62) is DENIED AS MOOT as it
responds to the original complaint,2 and the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction by Defendants Ingles Market, Folk, King, and Rainey is GRANTED. Further,
Campbell’s motions to compel discovery form the individual defendants (ECF Nos. 94, 126,
127) are now moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 26, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hammett may now file dispositive motions addressing the claims raised in Campbell’s amended complaint.
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?