Summary
ruling that "[t]he evidence presented, including the [p]laintiff'sown allegations and statements . . ., plainly shows that at the time of his arrest, [the plaintiff] actively resisted being taken into custody and refused to cooperate," and therefore "it was not unreasonable for the [d]efendants to believe that the [p]laintiff posed a threat of serious physical harm to them" requiring the use of force applied
Summary of this case from Garcia v. McClaskeyOpinion
C/A No.: 8:09-00041-GRA-BHH.
October 28, 2009
ORDER (Written Opinion)
This matter comes before the Court to review Magistrate Judge Hendricks' Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., filed on September 29, 2009. Plaintiff brought a § 1983 claim against the Defendants on January 9, 2009. On March 2, 2009, Defendant Southern Health Partners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 16, 2009, Defendants DeLoach and Warchol filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff responded in opposition to both motions within the adequate time frame. On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Injunctive Relief. For the reasons stated herein, this Court adopts the magistrate's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
Conclusion
After a thorough review of the record, magistrate's Report and Recommendation, and the relevant case law, this Court finds that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court adopts the magistrate's Recommendation in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motions are DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of its entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.