Adrian Beaty v. Officer Clifford Junkins

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 7:24-cv-07304
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION

Adrian Beaty, ) Case No. 7:24-cv-07304-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Officer Clifford Junkins, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On June 13, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 54. On January 15, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted. ECF No. 79. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.1

1 The Court notes that the Report was initially mailed on January 15, 2026. ECF No. 80. On January 23, 2026, the Clerk’s Office received a notice of change of address from Plaintiff and remailed the Report to the new address on the same day. ECF Nos. 81, 82. The first copy of the Report was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 84. The second copy has not returned. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in 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.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the

Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [54] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge March 13, 2026 Spartanburg, South Carolina