Devlin v. Davis et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 63 . Defendants motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs motion for jury trial (ECF No. 54) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/22/2016. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James L. Devlin,
Officer Tye Nalley;
Officer Noe Sudduth,
Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-1024-TMC
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 63), recommending that the court
grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) and deny Plaintiff’s motion for
jury trial (ECF No. 54). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF
No. 63 at 6). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge, or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an
explanation for adopting the Report. 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 entire record in this case, the court adopts
the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 63) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for jury trial
(ECF No. 54) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
December 22, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?