Simon v. Paige et al

Filing 70

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 47 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and the state law tort claim asserted against Defendant in his individual capacity is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 7/3/2014.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIqI:9a~TR1:rG;I/l.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
.
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Jovan Cornelius Simon, # 25282-171,

)

lal~

JUL - 3 P 2: 28

CIA No.: 9: 13-3025-RMG-BM

)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)

vs.

ORDER

)
)

LlCPL Kevin Paige, SCHP; Trooper Bucky
)
Geddings, SCHP; LlCpl Mark Jennings, SCHP; and)
Agent H. Eric Cohoon, ATF;
)
)

Defendants.

)

--------------------------------)
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that Defendant Kevin Paige's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings be granted and to the extent that Plaintiff has asserted a state law tort claim against
Paige in his individual capacity, such a claim be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 59). No objections have
been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees and 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 Il 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 &

1

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).
Under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, Defendant Paige is not subject to suit in his
individual capacity for a state law tort. Therefore, the District Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's R & R, (Dkt. No. 59), as the order of the Court. Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 47) is GRANTED and the state law tort claim asserted against
Defendant in his individual capacity is DISMISSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED

Richard Mark Ge el
United States District Court Judge

July~, 2014
Charleston, South Carolina

2