United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Robert Holt, individually, and the Estate of Doris C. Holt, by and through Robert B. Holt, sole beneficiary, Plaintiff,
South Carolina Department of Social Services; South Carolina Ombudsman's Office; Susan Stroman; Princess Hodges; Susan Tillman; Pamela Dantzler; Kathy Beers; Jennifer Brewton; Brenda Hughes; UniHealth Orangeburg, SC; UniHealth Post Acute Care of Columbia; Latoya Buggs-Williams; Sgt. Darin L. Dougherty; Sgt. George A. Drafts; April Merrill; Columbia Police Department; Lt. Governor Andre Bauer; Lt. Governor Ken Ard; Jayson F. Bring; Beth Schuler; Crystal Pavlick; Palmetto Senior Care; Palmetto Health; UHS-Pruitt Corporation; and Lt. Col. Carl Burke, Defendants.
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiffs, Robert B. Holt, also known as James Spencer, and the Estate of Doris Holt, by and through Robert B. Holt ("PlaintiffS"), proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on or about December 14, 2012, alleging various constitutional violations and personal injuries arising from the allegedly involuntary confinement of the late Doris Holt in nursing-home facilities. Plaintiffs assert both federal constitutional and statutory claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, 1985; 5 U.S.C. § 301; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2674, 2680(h); and 18 U.S.C. § 1961, as well as supplemental state-law based torts claims. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Docs. #1; 99).
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") issued on August 29, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #26). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against the following Defendants: Defendant South Carolina Department of Social Services and Defendant South Carolina Ombudsman's Office. (See Doc. #26). The Magistrate Judge's Report recommends that those Defendants be summarily dismissed without prejudice as Defendants in the above-captioned case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because those Defendants are immune from Plaintiffs' federal and state law claims under the Eleventh Amendment.
The Plaintiffs did not file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. The deadline for the parties to file Objections to the Report expired on September 16, 2013. (Doc. #26).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis , 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and all other relevant filings in this matter. After careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #26) is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Defendant South Carolina Department of Social Services and Defendant South Carolina Ombudsman's Office be dismissed without prejudice ...