Holtzclaw v. City of Greer

Opinion

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

Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., ) Case No. 6:24-cv-04026-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) City of Greer, City of Greer Police ) Department, City of Greer Municipal ) Court, Unknown Deputy 1st Arriving, ) Police Officer #2 Arriving, Police Officer ) #3 Arriving w Supervisor, Mr. ) Mulholland, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF Nos. 1, 10. 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 Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On August 7, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without further leave to amend. ECF No. 13. 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 On September 5, 2024, the Court received a motion for extension of time from Plaintiff requesting additional time to file objections. ECF No. 15. The Court granted the APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 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 adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without issuance and service of process and without further leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge October 29, 2024 Spartanburg, South Carolina

motion and extended the time to file objections until September 23, 2024. ECF No. 16. Despite the extension, Plaintiff has not filed objections.