Opinion
Civil Action 1:24-cv-532-MGL
10-23-2024
JOHN FRANCIS MEDAGLIA, III, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN MIDDLETON and CITY OF NEW ELLENTON, Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS DETAILED BELOW
MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff John Francis Medaglia, III (Medaglia), who is representing himself, filed this civil action against Defendants Shawn Middleton (Middleton) and New Ellenton Police Department (NEPD), alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-910, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court will construe Medaglia's claim under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-910 as a claim for false arrest.
This matter is before the Court for review of the two Reports and Recommendations (collectively, the Reports) of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Reports were made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
In the first Report (Report I), the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant NEPD's motion to dismiss as to Medaglia's claims for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress and deny the motion as to Medaglia's claims for violation of his First Amendment rights and false arrest. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge granted Medaglia's motion to amend the caption and substituted Defendant City of New Ellenton (the City) for NEPD.
In the second Report (Report II), the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant the City's motion for summary judgment, deny Medaglia's motions for summary judgment, deny Medaglia's motion for leave to reserve the lawsuit, and dismiss without prejudice Medaglia's claims against Middleton.
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 Report I on June 20, 2024, and Report II on September 17, 2024. To date, no objections have been filed.
“[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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). 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 under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Reports and incorporates them herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court the City's motion to dismiss, originally filed by NEPD, is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Medaglia's Fourth Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the City and DENIED as to Medaglia's First Amendment and false arrest claims against the City. Regarding these latter claims, the City's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Medaglia's motions for summary judgment are DENIED.
As to Medaglia's claims against Middleton, his motion for leave to reserve the lawsuit is DENIED, and such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Finally, because the Court has granted the City's motion for summary judgment, the City's remaining motion to dismiss is necessarily DEEMED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are 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.