ORDER

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Earnest E. Vaughn, Sr., proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 22, 2017. ECF No. 1. On November 29, 2017, Defendant Greenwood County ("County") filed a "Motion to Dismiss." ECF No. 27.On December 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, which included his affidavit and other documents.ECF No. 35.The County filed a reply on December 28, 2017, and Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on January 5, 2018. ECF Nos. 37, 39.

On January 26, 2018, Defendant Larry Robert Byrd ("Byrd") filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim." ECF No. 47.On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, again including his affidavit and other additional materials. ECF No. 64. Byrd filed a reply on February 27, 2018.ECF No. 67.Plaintiff filed additional documents, including another affidavit, to supplement his response in opposition on March 15, 2018.ECF No. 70.

This matter now comes before the Court for review of the two Report and Recommendations ("Reports") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). ECF Nos. 40, 71. When "matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the [12(b)(6)] motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56."Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).Plaintiff was specifically advised that submission of materials outside the pleadings could convert the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment if the materials were considered by the court.ECF Nos. 28, 48.Because the Magistrate Judge reviewed and relied upon documents filed outside the pleadings, it treated the pending motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment.ECF Nos. 40 at 4, 71 at 3.

In the Reports, the Magistrate Judge recommends that both motions be granted. Id. Plaintiff filed objections to the Reports on January 24, 2018, and April 30, 2018, and the County and Byrd replied.ECF Nos. 43, 55, 73, 75. These matters are now ripe for disposition.

In reviewing the Reports, the Court applies the following standard:

Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).

In light of this standard, the Court closely reviewed de novo the Reports, Plaintiff's objections to the Reports, the other related filings, the relevant law, and the record in this case. The Magistrate Judge concluded, and the Court agrees, that the County's "Motion to Dismiss" should be granted because Plaintiff does not include any allegations that "Byrd's actions were the result of a municipal policy or custom or that the County officials were aware of a pattern of constitutional violations by Byrd and did nothing in acquiescence." ECF No. 40 at 5. The Magistrate Judge also concluded, and the Court agrees, that Byrd's "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim" should be granted because the grand jury returned indictments against Plaintiff, which establishes probable cause for his arrest.ECF No. 71 at 4; See Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 189 (4th Cir. 2012). Further, as the Magistrate Judge addresses in the Reports, Plaintiff did not show that Byrd either deliberately or "with a `reckless disregard for the truth' made material false statements" to the grand jury.Id. at 5; See Miller v. Prince George's Cty., Maryland, 475 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, Plaintiff cannot overcome the establishment of probable cause by the grand jury's return of the indictments.Id.

The Court notes that Plaintiff's objections do not change the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge in the Reports.Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections, ECF Nos. 43, 73, are OVERRULED, and the Reports, ECF Nos. 40, 71, are ACCEPTED.For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the motions, ECF Nos. 27, 47, are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.