United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
William D. Caddell, Plaintiff,
City of Conway, South Carolina; Tammy Lynn Carter; Cunha M. Juvenal; David Leon Bridges, Jr; Defendants.
C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court upon Defendants City of Conway,
South Carolina and Tammy Lynn Carter's (“the Moving
Defendants”) motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 30.
Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a response in opposition,
and the Moving Defendants filed a reply. ECF Nos. 37, 39. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
LAW AND ANALYSIS
March 18, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted
with respect to Plaintiff's federal causes of action and
this case be dismissed in the entirety. ECF No. 51. Despite
being represented since the initiation of this action,
Plaintiff filed pro se objections to the Report. ECF No. 53.
Because he is still represented, these objections are not
properly before the Court. See Shack v. Beaufort Cty.
School Dist., C/A No. 9:11-cv-03201-DCN, 2015 WL
1011343, at *11 n. 1 (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2015) (noting that
there is no right to hybrid representation). Plaintiff filed
15 pages of objections and more than 100 pages of exhibits;
he also provided audio exhibits. See ECF Nos. 53,
55. Plaintiff's counsel did not file objections on his
behalf. On April 18, 2019, the Court held a phone conference
with all counsel of record to discuss whether Plaintiff's
counsel intended to file objections on his client's
behalf. ECF No. 61. The deadline for filing objections was
extended. Id. On April 26, 2019, Plaintiff's
counsel filed objections essentially directing the Court to
Plaintiff's previously filed pro se objections. ECF No.
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). The Court will review the Report only for clear error
in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
stated above, this action was initiated by counsel on
Plaintiff's behalf. Accordingly, the Court declines to
liberally construe his Complaint. Despite the fact that
Plaintiff has filed pro se objections while he remains
represented by counsel, the Court has thoroughly reviewed his
pro se objections as requested by his attorney. In his
objections, Plaintiff states that his counsel declined to
attach several of his exhibits to the response in opposition
to the motion for summary judgment, which he now provides for
the Court's review. He also takes issue with several
statements by the Magistrate Judge; however, he fails to
address any critical elements of the Magistrate Judge's
legal analysis or conclusions.
Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, the
applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge;
having done so, the undersigned agrees with the
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
respect to Plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment and
false arrest under § 1983, as explained in detail by the
Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has provided no evidence that he
was actually arrested or given any restrictions. See
Glass v. Anne Arundel Cty., 716 Fed.Appx. 179, 180 n. 1
(4th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases; Ryu v. Whitten,
684 Fed.Appx. 308, 311 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A summons
requiring no more than a court appearance, without additional
restrictions, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment
seizure.”). Moreover, because Plaintiff has not
established a constitutional violation, the City of Conway is
not liable for failing to train is employees under §
1983. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S.
796, 799 (1986) (holding that municipal liability under
§ 1983 requires a finding of constitutional injury as a
civil conspiracy under § 1985, Plaintiff fails to
provide any allegations that any Defendant held a
“class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus”
toward him or that he was deprived of equal protection.
See Thomas v. Salvation Army S. Territory, 841 F.3d
632, 637 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Accordingly,
Plaintiff's objections are overruled with respect to this
claim. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to bring civil
conspiracy as a state law cause of action, the Court will
address this claim below.
Magistrate Judge recommends that, in the event the
undersigned agrees that Plaintiff's federal causes of
action should be dismissed, the Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state
law claims. Upon consideration of “the convenience and
fairness to the parties, existence of any underlying issues
of federal policy, comity, and . . . judicial economy,
” the Court agrees it is appropriate to decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state
law claims. See Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106,
110, 110 (4th Cir. 1995).
foregoing reasons the Court adopts the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. The Moving Defendants' motion for
summary judgment  is GRANTED with
respect to Plaintiff's federal causes of action.
Plaintiff's state law claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice to his right to
bring these claims in state court. As stated by the
Magistrate Judge, because the same analysis would apply to
Defendants Cunha M. Juvenal and David Leon Bridges, Jr, the
remainder of Plaintiff's case is also