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, )

Download PDF
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

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?