Brooks v. Borghi et al, No. 5:2021cv03282 - Document 32 (D.S.C. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court has reviewedthe 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 ag rees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 29), and the Court dismisses this action only as to Defendants Robert Hill Lake, Orangeburg County Sheriffs Office, and State Fiscal Accountability Insurance Reserve Fund. The Complaint should be served on the remaining Defendants, Kevin O. Borghi and Leroy Ravenell.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/08/2022. (apsn)

Download PDF
Brooks v. Borghi 5:21-cv-03282-BHH-MHC et al Date Filed 12/08/22 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Altony Brooks, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Kevin O. Borghi, Leroy Ravenell, ) State Fiscal Accountability Insurance ) Reserve Fund, Robert Hill Lake, ) Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Office, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-3282-BHH ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Altony Brooks’ (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). On November 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss Robert Hill Lake, Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Office, and State Fiscal Accountability Insurance Reserve Fund as Defendants to this action. The Magistrate Judge further recommended service of the complaint on Defendants Kevin O. Borghi and Leroy Ravenell. (ECF No. 29.) 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com 5:21-cv-03282-BHH-MHC Date Filed 12/08/22 Entry Number 32 Page 2 of 2 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 party has filed objections to the Report, 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. 29), and the Court dismisses this action only as to Defendants Robert Hill Lake, Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Office, and State Fiscal Accountability Insurance Reserve Fund. The Complaint should be served on the remaining Defendants, Kevin O. Borghi and Leroy Ravenell. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge December 8, 2022 Charleston, South Carolina 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.