Clark v. Horry County South Carolina Sheriffs Office et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Defendants HCSO and Morales in his official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's SCTCA claim, and that claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because all claims against it have been dismissed, Defendant HCSO is DISMISSED from this action. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 10/3/2017.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
HORRY COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA
SHERIFF=S OFFICE, and PFC J. MORALES '
JOHN THOMAS CLARK,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-00742-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In his Complaint, John Thomas Clark (Plaintiff) brought claims against Defendants Horry
County Sheriff=s Office (HCSO) and Pfc J. Morales (Morales) (collectively Defendants) for
violation of 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and 42 U.S.C. ' 1988, and against HCSO for violation of the South
Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA). ECF No. 1. The matter is before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate
Judge recommends HCSO and Morales in his official capacity be dismissed with prejudice from
Plaintiff=s claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and 42 U.S.C. ' 1988. The Magistrate Judge also suggests
Defendants= motion to dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff=s SCTCA claim, and that claim be
dismissed without prejudice. Because that disposition would dismiss all claims against HCSO,
the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing HCSO from the case. If the Report is adopted, the
Magistrate Judge notes the only claim remaining will be Plaintiff=s claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983
and 42 U.S.C. ' 1988 against Morales in his individual capacity. The Report was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 636 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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on September 13, 2017, ECF No. 19, but Plaintiff
failed to file any objections to the Report. A[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Defendants HCSO and Morales in his official capacity are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE from Plaintiff=s claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and 42 U.S.C. ' 1988.
Defendants= motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff=s SCTCA claim, and that claim is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because all claims against it have been dismissed,
Defendant HCSO is DISMISSED from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 3rd day of October, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?