Warrick v. Doran et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the case against Defendant Edgefield County Sheriff's Department is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/4/13. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
David Wayne Warrick,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Randy Doran; Phil Ireland; Edgefield County
)
Sheriff’s Office;
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-00242-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 15], filed on March 12, 2013, recommending that this
court dismiss the case against Defendant, Edgefield County Sheriff’s Department, without
prejudice and without service of process. Plaintiff David Wayne Warrick (“Plaintiff”) filed this
case pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants
defamed and falsely arrested him. He seeks monetary compensation. The Magistrate Judge
determined that, as an agency of the state, Defendant Edgefield County Sheriff’s Office is
immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and 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 Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court.

The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
1

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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 15 at 4].
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.

In the absence of objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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 file
specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the
judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After careful review of the record, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 15]. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the
case against Defendant Edgefield County Sheriff’s Department is DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
April 4, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina
2