Green v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division ( 2019 )

EE oR a) 6, A * ae Se x HS Rorsp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION DARRELL GREEN, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:18-0114-MGL § S/A TREVOR HOWLETT; S/A GLENN _— § WOODS; AGENT CASEY JONES; § AGENT DERRICK SUGGS; and § OFC. SHANE KEITH, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Darrell L. Green (Green), a self-represented state prisoner, filed this action against Defendants Special Agent Trevor Howlett, Special Agent Glenn Woods, Agent Casey Jones, Agent Derrick Suggs, and Officer Shane Keith’s (collectively, Defendants) under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted as to Green’s federal claims. The Magistrate Judge further recommends the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Green’s state claams The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on July 8, 2019, the Clerk of Court entered Green’s objections on July 23, 2019. The Court has carefully reviewed Green’s objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. Greens has failed to offer any specific objections to the Report. Instead, he makes a host of conclusory statements and allegations concerning alleged fraudulent and seal documents. “In the absence of specific written objection, the district court [can] adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation . . . without conducting a de novo review[.]” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Green’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Green’s federal claims is GRANTED. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Green’s state claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 12th day of August, 2019, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.