Simon v. Paige et al

Filing 69

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying 46 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 7/3/2014.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DIST~I<;T c;Ol!J~TI

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH C'AROLINA·

10' Q JUL - 3 p 2: 28
Jovan Cornelius Simon, # 25282-171,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

vs.
L/Cpl. Kevin Paige, SCHP; Trooper Bucky
Geddings, SCHP; L/Cpl. Mark Jennings,
SCHP; Agent H. Eric Cohoon, ATF,
Defendants.

CIA No.: 9:13-cv-03025-RMG-BM

ORDER

--------------------------------)
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court deny Defendants Geddings and Jennings' Motion
to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 58). No party has filed objections. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court ADOPTS the R & R as the order of the Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is
made. Here, however, because no objection has been made, this Court "must 'only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'"

Diamondv. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R &
R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,200 (4th Cir. 1983).

1

The Court previously addressed whether or not the Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to
preclude summary dismissal against Defendants Geddings and Jennings. (See Dkt. Nos. 25, 28).
The Court found that the allegations, as amended, were sufficient. ld.
Therefore the District Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R, (Dkt. No. 58), as
the order of the Court. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 46) is
DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED

July~, 2014

Charleston, South Carolina

2