Opinion
C. A. 0:23-cv-5351-SAL
04-16-2024
Travis Jamaal Robinson, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Prinz, Defendant.
ORDER
SHERRI A. LYDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) (the “Report”). [ECF No. 32.] Plaintiff Travis Jamaal Robinson filed this pro se action against Defendant Christopher Prinz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [ECF No. 1.] Robinson alleges Prinz, an officer with the Rock Hill Police Department, unlawfully arrested him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 5-6.
Prinz moves to dismiss Robinson's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [ECF No. 21.] The magistrate judge recommends the court dismiss all Robinson's claims, except for an excessive force claim brought against Prinz in his individual capacity. [ECF No. 32 at 510.] The Report notified Robinson of the procedures for filing objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. Id. at 10-11. He did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so-March 18, 2024-has passed.
The 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court must review de novo only the portions of the Report to which a party has specifically objected, and it may accept, reject, or modify the Report in whole or in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error. The Report, ECF No. 32, is therefore adopted in full and incorporated herein. Prinz's motion dismiss, ECF No. 21, is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.