Escalante v. Anderson County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 97

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 92 Report and Recommendation overruling Plaintiff's Objection. Sheriff Department Defendants' 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Rodgers Defendants' 47 Motion for Summary Judgment, are both GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 8/16/2016. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mario Escalante,

) Civil Action No. 8:15-177-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
)
Anderson County Sheriff’s Department, et al.,
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________ )
Plaintiff Mario Escalante, (“Plaintiff”), brings the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and South Carolina state law. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn
D. Austin for pre-trial handling. On July 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, (“the Report”), (ECF No. 92), recommending that this Court grant the Motion for
Summary Judgment of Defendants Anderson County Sheriff’s Department, Sergeant Andrew R.
Hyslop, Sheriff John Skipper, and Deputy Brandon Surratt (collectively, “the Sheriff’s Department
Defendants”) (ECF No. 45) and the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants David L. Rodgers
and Janice W. Rodgers, both d/b/a Whitehall Express Mart, (collectively, “the Rogers Defendants”)
(ECF No. 47). Plaintiff submitted a timely Objection to the Report on August 15, 2016, (ECF No.
95), and the matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by

the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the entire record
in this case, including, in particular, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Plaintiff’s Objection. The
Court has considered each of Plaintiff’s objections and finds that none of Plaintiff’s arguments
effectively counter the reasoned conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, including the Report’s central
conclusions: (1) that Plaintiff has produced no evidence to support his entirely speculative
contention that shop owner defendant David Rodgers manufactured the shoplifting allegation against
Plaintiff in order to shield his store from possible punishment for a Sunday alcohol sale ordinance
violation; and (2) that probable cause ultimately supported Plaintiff’s shoplifting arrest.
Based upon all of the forgoing, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge
and adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 92), overruling Plaintiff’s
Objection. (ECF No. 95). Accordingly, the Sheriff Department Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, (ECF No. 45), and the Rodgers Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
47), are both GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
August 16, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
-2-