Strickland v. Bennett et al
Filing
41
ORDER RULING ON 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court accepts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 20) by reference into this Order. It is therefore ordered that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants Lt. Peay, Sgt. Barns, Lt. Wessinger, Lt. Roe, Sgt. Anderson, Sgt. Brown, and Sgt. Rucker. Only Defendants Lt. Bennett, Sgt. Creel, Sgt. Fish, Lt. Blackburn, Capt. Golden, Sgt. Bilu, Lt. Papella, Sgt. Sidney, and Ofc. Bunkley remain. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/19/2018. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Glen Strickland, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lt. Bennett, Sgt. Creel, Sgt. Fish, Lt.
Peay, Lt. Blackbrn, Capt. Golden, Sgt.
Barns, Lt. Wessinger, Sgt. Bilu, Lt.
Papella, Sgt. Sidney, Lt. Roe, Sgt.
Anderson, Sgt. Brown, Sgt. Rucker, Ofc.
Bunkley,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 9:18-819-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Glen Strickland, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C § 1983. (ECF. No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by the Magistrate
Judge on August 8, 2018. (ECF No. 20.) In his Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court dismiss Defendants Lt. Peay, Sgt. Barns, Lt. Wessinger, Lt. Roe, Sgt.
Anderson, Sgt. Brown, and Sgt. Rucker as party Defendants in this case, without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process. Objections to the Report were due by August
27, 2018. Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff has filed any objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and
incorporates the Report (ECF No. 20) by reference into this Order. It is therefore
ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process as to Defendants Lt. Peay, Sgt. Barns, Lt. Wessinger, Lt.
Roe, Sgt. Anderson, Sgt. Brown, and Sgt. Rucker. Only Defendants Lt. Bennett, Sgt. Creel,
Sgt. Fish, Lt. Blackburn, Capt. Golden, Sgt. Bilu, Lt. Papella, Sgt. Sidney, and Ofc. Bunkley
remain. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 19, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
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?