Opinion
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-0970-RBH-TER
04-10-2014
Kathryn Floyd Causey, Plaintiff, v. Officer M. Paitsel; Officer K. Ballard-Wolff; Diane L. Pieterse, Sergeant; Male Employee Belk, Unidentified, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Kathryn Floyd Causey ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on April 11, 2013, alleging constitutional and state tort law claims against the above-captioned Defendants. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On July 17, 2013, Defendant Male Employee Belk, Unidentified ("Defendant Male Employee") filed a Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 33. Plaintiff timely responded to the motion on July 30, 2013, requesting that Defendant's motion be denied. See ECF No. 39. Defendant Male Employee then filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss on October 1, 2013, see ECF No. 54, which mooted the previous motion and response, see Text Order, ECF No. 55. Plaintiff filed a timely response to the Amended Motion on October 23, 2013, requesting that the Amended Motion be denied. See ECF No. 59. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 69. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant Male Employee's Amended Motion and that he be dismissed without prejudice. See id. at 5.
The Court previously dismissed, without prejudice, Defendants City of Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach Police Department, and Belk by Order dated July 2, 2013. See Order, ECF No. 30 at 2.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant Male Employee's Amended Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 54, is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant Male Employee is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
April 10, 2014