Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. West

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

July 9, 2015

L C BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT C WEST, in his individual capacity, SCDC-Employee, Defendant.

ORDER

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff L. C. Brown filed this pro se action in the Court of Common Pleas for Lee County, State of South Carolina. (Doc. #1-1). Defendant filed his Answer and Notice of Removal to this Court on December 15, 2014. (Doc. #1, 4). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment on May 11, 2015. (Doc. #15). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on May 21, 2015 (Doc. #20), to which Defendant replied on June 8, 2015 (Doc. #26). Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment on May 15, 2015 (Doc. #18), to which Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on June 1, 2015 (Doc. #25).

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's federal claim, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff attempts to assert, and deny Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. (Doc. #28). Plaintiff's objections to the Report were due by July 2, 2015. Plaintiff failed to file objections, and this matter is now ripe for disposition.

The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #28). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal claim (Doc. #15), and any state law claims Plaintiff attempts to assert are hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is DENIED. (Doc. #18).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.