Capers v. Hernandez et al

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 28), and the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/3/2024. (dgar)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Paul Capers,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Jason Loy,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 9:23-cv-6821-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Paul Capers’ (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial
proceedings.
On February 9, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), construing Plaintiff’s complaint as bringing claims against Defendant for
“violations of his constitutional rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and to
equal protection under the law.” (ECF No. 6.) The Magistrate Judge also authorized
service against Defendant. (ECF No. 7.)
On March 5, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15.) The
Magistrate Judge issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), explaining the dismissal procedure to Plaintiff and instructing Plaintiff to respond to
the motion. (ECF No. 18.) After considering the record, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report on May 14, 2024, recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 28.) Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the
right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a

copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 28),
and the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 3, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

2