Morton v. Seneca Police Department, City of et al
Filing
44
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 34 Report and Recommendation. 30 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is partially granted with respect to Plaintiff's §§ 1983 and 1985 claims, and denied wi th respect to Plaintiff's IIED Claim. The §§ 1983 and 1985 claims are dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff may move the Court to amend her complaint. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/9/2018. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tori Morton,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Seneca Police Department, Mark
Tiller, John Covington,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 8:17-1949-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Tori Morton (“Plaintiff”), through counsel, brought this civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, along with allegations of negligent hiring, training and
supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (ECF. No. 1.) In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, for pretrial handling.
The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 18, 2018. (ECF No. 34.) In her Report,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court partially grant Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 30) with respect to Plaintiff’s §§ 1983 and 1985 claims, and deny the
motion with respect to Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim.
Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff have filed any Objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report to which
a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and
incorporates the Report (ECF No. 34) by reference into this Order. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is partially granted with
respect to Plaintiff’s §§ 1983 and 1985 claims, and denied with respect to Plaintiff’s IIED
Claim. The §§ 1983 and 1985 claims are dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff may
move the Court to amend her complaint. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge
for further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 9, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
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?