Williams v. Greenwood Police Department et al

Filing 24

ORDER accepting 18 Report and Recommendation, overruling Plaintiff's 20 Objections and dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/4/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
GERMAINE ANTONIO WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREENWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT; )
INDEX JOURNAL NEWSPAPER; and
)
JERRY EASLEY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 8:14-cv-03914-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Germaine Antonio Williams, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
civil action against Defendants, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights and defamed
his name. (Doc. #1). This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, to
whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the Complaint
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. #18). Plaintiff filed timely
objections to the Report on December 3, 2014 (Doc. #20), and this matter is now ripe for
disposition.
In conducting its review of the Report, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate

judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #18), and Plaintiff’s objections thereto are
OVERRULED (Doc. #20). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 4, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina