From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevens v. Spartanburg Co. Pro., Parole, Pardon Svc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Feb 23, 2010
C.A. No. 6:09-795-HMH-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2010)

Summary

finding that prosecutorial immunity barred action against probation officer where the claims involved the probation officer acting in a prosecutorial function in prosecuting the plaintiff's probation revocation proceedings

Summary of this case from Pilgrim v. Delaney

Opinion

C.A. No. 6:09-795-HMH-WMC.

February 23, 2010


OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 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) (2006).

The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Catoe's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, docket number 31, is granted. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion requesting cases, docket number 44, is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Stevens v. Spartanburg Co. Pro., Parole, Pardon Svc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Feb 23, 2010
C.A. No. 6:09-795-HMH-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2010)

finding that prosecutorial immunity barred action against probation officer where the claims involved the probation officer acting in a prosecutorial function in prosecuting the plaintiff's probation revocation proceedings

Summary of this case from Pilgrim v. Delaney
Case details for

Stevens v. Spartanburg Co. Pro., Parole, Pardon Svc.

Case Details

Full title:John Marcus Stevens, #282316, Plaintiff, v. Spartanburg County Probation…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

Date published: Feb 23, 2010

Citations

C.A. No. 6:09-795-HMH-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wazney v. Campbell

It is well settled that clerks of court and other court support personnel are entitled to immunity similar to…

Pilgrim v. Delaney

Moreover, Ms. Sandefur is entitled to prosecutorial immunity with respect to her part in Plaintiff's…