Allen v. Greenwood County Sheriffs Department et al

Filing 76

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 73 . The Court the adopts the R & R as an order of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for declaratory and injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 50) is DENIED, Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/15/2015. (kric, )

RECEIVFD CLERK'S OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLIN~15 OCT 15 A !O: I 3
Simon Allen, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bryan Louis,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.8: 15-cv-0363':RMQ"-'
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 73), recommending that Defendant's motion for summary judgment
be granted and Plaintiffs motion for declaratory an injunctive relief be denied. Plaintiff has filed
objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 74). For the reasons stated below, the Court the adopts the R
& R as an order of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for declaratory and injunctive

relief (Dkt. No. 50) is DENIED, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 57) is
GRANTED.

I. Bacground
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Anderson City Jail. He filed this Section 1983 action
against a number of defendants. (Dkt. No.1). Plaintiffs allegations all concern Law
Enforcement Case File No. 13-27456 which resulted in four criminal charges: attempted murder,
possession of a weapon during a violent crime, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute,
and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.! (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 15); see also Greenwood
County Eighth Judicial Circuit Public Index, available at

1

These allegations are delineated in detail in a prior R & R. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 2.)
1

http://198.206.194.114/Greenwood!PublicIndex/CaseDetails.aspx?County=24&CourtAgency=24
001&Casenum=2013A2410201 I 10&CaseType=C. For instance, he complains about the search,
his arrest and judicial proceedings related to the law enforcement case. (Dkt. No.1). Plaintiff
seeks release from jail and damages. (ld at 7).
On March 12, 20 IS, this Court summarily dismissed most of Plaintiff s claims. (Dkt. No.
18). After a thorough review of the Complaint, the Court held that the only potential Section
1983 claim arguably pled was a claim against Bryan Louis based on Plaintiffs allegation that
Defendant Louis "lied to Judge to get search warrant." (Id at S). Thereafter, Defendant Louis
was served, and he filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. S7). Plaintiff filed a motion
for declaratory and injunctive relief asking this Court to intervene in Plaintiffs pending state
criminal case. (Dkt. No. SO). On September 29, 201S, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R,
recommending Plaintiffs motion be denied and Defendant's motion for summary judgment be
granted. (Dkt. No. 73). Plaintiff filed objections to portions of the R & R. (Dkt. No. 74).
II. Lel:al Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recotnmendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is char.ged with making a de novo determination ofthose
portions of the R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Diamondv. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 31S (4th Cir. 200S) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2

However, as to portions of the R & R to which no objection is made, this Court "must
'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face ofthe record in order to accept the
recommendation.'" Diamondv. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Additionally, the Court need not give any
explanation for adopting the R & R in the absence of specific objections by the parties. See

Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,200 (4th Cir. 1983) ("Absent objection, we do not believe that
any explanation need be given for adopting the report.").

II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff's Motion
Plaintiff has made no specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that
the Court deny Plaintiffs motion. The Court agrees that there are simply no extraordinary
circumstances present here that would warrant a federal court intervening in a pending state
criminal proceeding. For the reasons stated in the R & R, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion.

B. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant has failed to create a genuine
issue of material fact for trial on his sole remaining federal claim. In his Complaint, briefing and
objections, Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that Defendant Louis lied to the Magistrate
Judge to obtain a search warrant. (E.g., Dkt. No. 74 at 2). He states Defendant Louis changed an
address on a supplemental incident report, changed other officer's statement and "fabricated his
own statement." (Id.). Other than allegedly changing an address on a supplemental report,
Defendant does not point to a single allegedly false statement made by Defendant Louis to the
Magistrate Judge or otherwise.
3

As to the alleged address change, it appears Plaintiff contends Defendant Louis changed
the address at which officers responded to a shooting from 515 Nation Rd to 520 Nation Rd.
(See Dkt. No.1 at 5). However, there is no evidence in the record to support this assertion. To

the extent that Plaintiff attempts to testify to this assertion, he lacks personal knowledge of the
matter and his testimony is excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 602.
Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Louis lied about having witness
statements,2 the undisputed record is that Defendant Louis took such statements after responding
to a shooting and properly used them to obtain a search warrant. (Dkt. No. 57-2 at 8-10). To the
extent Plaintiff attempts to testify to the contrary, he lacks personal knowledge of the matter and
his testimony is excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 602. Without any evidence to support his
conclusory assertions, there is no material issue of fact, and summary judgment is appropriate.
C. State Law Claims

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff s federal claims, the Court declines jurisdiction over any
remaining state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated below, the Court the adopts the R & R (Dkt. No. 73) as an order of
this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for declaratory and injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 50) is
DENIED, Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED, and this
case is DISMISSED.

II

2 Plaintiff does not actually state that Defendant lied about having witness statements, but
the witness statements appear to be the basis of the search warrant at issue.
4

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
October J$"' , 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

5