Williams v. Saluda County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's 1 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/3/13. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Gerald Rudell Williams,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Saluda County Sheriff’s Office,
)
Gerry Grenier, Gene Morelli,
)
Jesse Quattlebaum, Charles Padget,
)
Robert Shorter and Archie Hill,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 8:12-cv-03212-JMC

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 20], filed on December 14, 2012, analyzing Plaintiff
Gerald Rudell Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, which alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983
and certain state torts. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, was a prisoner at the
Saluda County Jail. He challenges the appropriateness of his arrest and alleges malicious
prosecution as well as slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that this court dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. The Report sets forth in detail the procedural history, the relevant facts
and the legal standards on this matter, which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination
1

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 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the
matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
"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). Furthermore, failure
to timely file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of his right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court based on such a recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Adams v. South Carolina, 244 F. App'x 534, 535 (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985).
Plaintiff timely filed objections (“Objections”). [Dkt. No. 23]. Objections to the Report
must be specific. Failure to file specific objections 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 Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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 Plaintiff’s timely filed Objections are generally nonspecific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and merely
restate his claims. The Magistrate Judge found three reasons to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims
without prejudice. First, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff could not make a claim for
false arrest because he admits in his complaint that the arresting official had a warrant for his

2

arrest. Second, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim for malicious
prosecution because his criminal case is ongoing. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the court decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims
because his federal claims are properly dismissed. Plaintiff’s Objections fail to address any of
these conclusions.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this
case, the court adopts the Report [Dkt. No. 20] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Dkt. No. 22] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

June 3, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

3