Camden v. Greenville, The County of et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 40 Report and Recommendation. Defendants 28 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/8/2016. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Steven Blair Camden,
The County of Greenville;
Department of Public Safety for
Greenville County; Scotty Bodiford;
Tracy Krein; Lisa McCombs;
Kim Olszewski; Marie Livingston,
Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-00595-JMC
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012). (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 40), filed on January 19, 2016, recommending that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) be granted. The Report sets forth in
detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only
a recommendation to this court, and 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).
In this case, Plaintiff was advised of the right to file an objection to the Report “within
fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by February 5,
2016. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff filed no objections.
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). After a
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds that the Report provides
an accurate summary of the facts and law and that there is no clear error.
Therefore, the court ADOPTS the findings of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 40). It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 28) be GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
February 8, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?