Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation after finding no clear error and no objections. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed the plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims with prejudice, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law battery claim.
Holdings
- When no timely objection is filed to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court need not conduct de novo review and must only determine whether the recommendation contains clear error on the face of the record.
- Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims were dismissed with prejudice.
- The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law battery claim.
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation should be accepted after review for clear error when neither party filed objections.
- Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.
- Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law battery claim.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (2)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71(followed)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…