Singletary v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 35

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting in part 28 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The portion of Defendants motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs constitutional claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 isGRANTED, and the remainder of Defendants motion to dismiss is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs remaining state law claim is REMANDED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 7/31/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

WILLIAM SINGLETARY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, WILLIE EAGLETON,
ANNIE SELLERS, and REGINALD DAVIS,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 9:17-2698-MGL-BM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING IN PART AND DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REMANDING PLAINTIFF’S REMAINING
CAUSE OF ACTION
This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is represented by excellent counsel.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part,
dismiss Plaintiff’s second cause of action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and remand Plaintiff’s
remaining state law cause of action. 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 July 10, 2018, ECF No. 34, but Plaintiff failed
to file any objections to the Report. “[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’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. The portion of Defendants’ motion to
dismiss seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s constitutional claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is
GRANTED, and the remainder of Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim is REMANDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 31st day of July 2018 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2