Grant v. Hill

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-06595
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Henry Kevin Grant, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 6:24-cv-6595-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Laurens Police Department, Det. ) R. W. Van Pelt, Officer Johnson, ) Laurens Hospital Emergency Room, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Henry Kevin Grant’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On December 19, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that certain Defendants be summarily dismissed. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants Laurens City Police Department and Laurens Hospital Emergency Room be dismissed. (ECF No. 17 at 4-8.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections to the Report have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 17) and summarily dismisses Defendants Laurens Police Department and Laurens Hospital Emergency Room from this action. The action remains pending against

Detective Van Pelt and Officer Johnson. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge January 10, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina