From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Battle v. Jones

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jan 17, 2017
Civil Action No. 6:15-4960-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 6:15-4960-BHH

01-17-2017

Julian De'Andre Battle, Plaintiff, v. Laura Jones, Defendant.


ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Julian De'Andre Battle ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation ("Report").

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60). On December 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge West issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, and that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 66.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 66 at 18.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on January 6, 2017.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a 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." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and to evince no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation and incorporates the Report herein by specific reference. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks

United States District Judge January 17, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Battle v. Jones

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jan 17, 2017
Civil Action No. 6:15-4960-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2017)
Case details for

Battle v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:Julian De'Andre Battle, Plaintiff, v. Laura Jones, Defendant.

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Jan 17, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 6:15-4960-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2017)

Citing Cases

McDuffie v. City of Charleston Police Dep't

2016) (cleaned up) (citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 6:15-4960-BHH, 2017 WL…

McDuffie v. City of Charleston Police Dep't

, No. CV 6:15-4960-BHH, 2017 WL 167930 (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2017).…