From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valencia v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Aug 14, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-0634MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-0634MGL

08-14-2017

DAVID VALENCIA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE OFFICERS, Greenville County Police Department; GREENVILLE COUNTY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; and OFFICER JEREMY E. JONES, E38 Greenville Police Department, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING JOHN DOE OFFICERS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND JONES'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting John Doe Officers be dismissed without prejudice as per Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m) and Defendants Greenville County Sheriff's Office and Jones's motion for summary judgment be granted. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on July 27, 2017, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections. "[I]n 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., 416F.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court John Doe Officers are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m) and Defendants Greenville County Sheriff's Office and Jones's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 14th day of August, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis

MARY GEIGER LEWIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Valencia v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Aug 14, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-0634MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2017)
Case details for

Valencia v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:DAVID VALENCIA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE OFFICERS, Greenville County Police…

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

Date published: Aug 14, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-0634MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2017)