Sweat v. Rennick et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 47 Motion to Dismiss; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/19/2012.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Reginald C Sweat,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Alburey Rennick, Sergeant;
)
Cecilia Reynolds, Warden;
)
and Investigator Robinson in their
)
official and individual capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:11-cv-02908-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Doc. 37], filed on February 7, 2012, recommending that Defendant
Sylvesta Robinson’s1 Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 24] be granted and Defendants Aubrey Rennick2 and
Cecilia Reynold’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13] be granted as to Defendant Cecilia Reynolds.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The Report and

Recommendation 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 and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423

1

Plaintiff incorrectly identifies Defendant Sylvesta Robinson as “Investigator Robinson.”

2

Plaintiff incorrectly identifies Defendant Aubrey Rennick as “Alburey Rennick.”
1

U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District
Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
[Doc. 37 at 8]. Defendant Aubrey Rennick filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on
February 20, 2012. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. On
February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Termination of Action [Doc. 47], in which Plaintiff
stated that he wished “to terminate this action for the sake of that little girl Sgt. Auberey [sic] is
raising as a child and the fact that [Plaintiff] has two daughters and a grandson.” [Doc. 47]. On
February 27, 2012, Defendants filed Defendants’ Consent to Plaintiff’s Motion to Terminate [Doc.
48] in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Termination.
Upon a careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record

2

in this case, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 37]. Defendant Sylvesta
Robinson’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 24] is hereby GRANTED and Defendants Aubrey Rennick
and Cecilia Reynold’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13] is hereby GRANTED as to Defendant Cecilia
Reynolds. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Termination of Action [Doc. 47] is GRANTED as
to Defendant Aubrey Rennick. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 19, 2012.

3