Williams v. Padget

Filing 17

ORDER Accepting 10 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/1/13. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Gerald Rudell Williams, # 21405,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lt. Charles B. Padget, Saluda County
Sheriff’s Officer,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 8:13-cv-02168-JMC
ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

Defendant.
___________________________________

This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), [ECF No. 10], filed August 14, 2013, recommending that the above-captioned case be
dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief
pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment [ECF No. 1 at 3] for
false imprisonment and false arrest. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards
on these matters 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 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 [ECF No. 10-6]. Plaintiff

timely filed objections to the Report on September 25, 2013. [ECF No. 15].
Objections to the Report must be specific. Failure to file specific written objections to

1 

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,
151 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 93-94 (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). In order to warrant de novo review,
Plaintiff’s objections must do more than merely restate his or her claims.
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court
ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 10].

It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without
prejudice and without service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

November 1, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2