Evans v. Byars et al

Filing 116

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 99 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 16 Motion to Dismiss is denied. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/11/2017. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Timothy A. Evans,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
William R. Byars, Jr., Dennis Patterson,
)
John R. Pate, Arthur Jordan, McKendly
)
Newton, Walter Worrock, Ricky Grimes, )
Larry Morris, George Jenkins, Rump,
)
Bealum, Keith Wallace, John Barkley,
)
Donaldson, Spalding, M. Smart, Ann
)
Hallman,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 8:16-3811-TMC-JDA

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1).1 Defendants William R. Byars, Jr., Dennis Patterson, John R.
Pate, Arthur Jordan, McKendly Newton,Walter Worrock, Ricky Grimes, Larry Morris, George
Jenkins, Rump, Keith Wallace, John Barkley, Donaldson, M. Smart, and Ann Hallman (collectively,
the “ Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16). Before the court is the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court deny the
Moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 99). The parties were advised of their right to
file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 99-1). However, no objections to the Report have been
filed, and the time to do so has now run.

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, DSC, this matter was
initially referred to a magistrate judge.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of
objections to the 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).
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 99) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 16) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
August 15, 2017
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.

2