Filed: Mar. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge. The Plaintiff has brought this pro se action against the Defendants under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Hendricks recommends that thi
Summary: ORDER TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge. The Plaintiff has brought this pro se action against the Defendants under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Hendricks recommends that this..
More
ORDER
TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge.
The Plaintiff has brought this pro se action against the Defendants under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Hendricks recommends that this Court partially summarily dismiss the Complaint in this case as to Defendants Elaine Sabb and Woodrow Gooding, Jr., without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. It is further recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 77) filed by Defendants Orr; Hagan; Ozmint; and Branham be granted as to Plaintiff's federal claims, that Plaintiff's state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice, and that this case be closed. The Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 97).1
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 93) and Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 97). The Complaint in this case is partially summarily DISMISSED as to Defendants Elaine Sabb and Woodrow Gooding, Jr., without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 77) filed by Defendants Orr; Hagan; Ozmint; and Branham is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal claims, Plaintiff's state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice, and this case is to be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
