Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Terry Jerome Smith,                                                                                       )
)
Plaintiff,                                                                                                )
                                                                                                          )
vs.                                                                                                       )                                                                                     Civil Action No.: 6:09-cv-3280-TLW-KFM
                                                                                                          )
Tom Fox, Officer Eastridge, Officer                                                                       )
Ruschioni, and Major Johnson,                                                                             )
)
Defendants.                                                                                               )
____________________________________)
ORDER
The plaintiff, Terry Jerome Smith (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 28, 2009.   (Doc. #1).  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 9, 2009.                                                                                            (Doc. # 19).   On June 24, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.                                                                                                 (Doc. # 53).   On June 25, 2010, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), giving the plaintiff until July 29, 2010, to file a response to
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.   (Doc. # 54).  The plaintiff filed a response and an
attachment to the response.   (Docs. 56, 58).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald to whom this case had
previously been assigned.                                                                                 (Doc. # 62).  In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
District Court grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  (Doc. # 62).  The plaintiff filed
objections to the report.                                                                                 (Doc. # 64).   In conducting this review, the Court applies the following
standard:
1




The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections . . .                                                                        .  The Court is not bound by the recommendation of
the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.
The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made.  However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed.  While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
the objections.  After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the
Report.  (Doc. # 62).  Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the defendants’
motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 53) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
February 25, 2011
Florence, South Carolina
2

Download 25392.pdf

South Carolina Law