Stoltie v. Anderson, County of et al, No. 8:2021cv03876 - Document 38 (D.S.C. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION agreeing with and wholly adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in the 9 Report which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff&# 039;s claims except for those against Defendants Timothy McCarley and Greg Hayden are DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. All other matters in this case remain with the magistrate judge for handling of pretria l proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). James Berggrun, J.T. Bowers, Brandon Brewer, Burdine, Johnny Chandler, Cassie Darnell, Heath Davis, John Doe, Et. Al. Defendants 1-100, Greenvi lle County Sheriff, Greenville, County of, Kelly, D. Ledbetter, MCCoy, Christopher Sellars, Michael Sloan, Robert Smith, Micaela Andres Tomas, Jonathan Velez, Anderson County Sheriff and Anderson, County of terminated. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 4/25/2022. (dist)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stoltie v. Anderson, County of et al 8:21-cv-03876-TMC-PJG Date Filed 04/25/22 Entry Number 38 Page 1 of 3 Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Brian Joseph Stoltie, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) County of Anderson; County of ) Greenville; Anderson County Sheriff; ) Greenville County Sheriff; John Doe; ) Michael Sloan; D. Ledbetter; James ) Berggrun; Mr./Ms. Kelly; Mr./Ms. ) McCoy; Mr. Burdine; Timothy ) McCarley; Robert Smith; Brandon ) Brewer; J.T. Bowers; Greg Hayden; ) Cassie Darnell; Heath Davis; Johnny ) Chandler; Christopher Sellars; ) Jonathan Velez; Micaela Andres ) Tomas; Et. Al. Defendants 1-100, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________) Civil Action No. 8:21-cv-3876-TMC ORDER Plaintiff Brian Joseph Stoltie, a state prisoner in Pennsylvania who is proceeding pro se in this litigation, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that all of Plaintiff’s claims except for those against Defendants Timothy McCarley and Greg Hayden be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 9 at 11). On February 9, 2022, the Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided the court. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file specific objections to the Report and of the potential consequences for failing to do so. (ECF No. 9 at 12). Plaintiff’s objections to the Dockets.Justia.com 8:21-cv-03876-TMC-PJG Date Filed 04/25/22 Entry Number 38 Page 2 of 3 Report were due on February 22, 2022. On February 22, 2022, the court received Plaintiff’s motion seeking an extension of 60 days to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff did not articulate any reason to support such a generous extension of time. Nonetheless, on April 5, 2022, out of an abundance of caution, the court granted Plaintiff an extension of time, in addition to the fifty-six days that had passed since the issuance of the Report, to file objections to the Report until April 18, 2022. (ECF No. 32). Despite the extension of time, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time for doing so has now expired. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed. App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)). Thus, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp., 8:21-cv-03876-TMC-PJG Date Filed 04/25/22 Entry Number 38 Page 3 of 3 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). The court has closely reviewed the Report and, finding no clear error, the court agrees with, and wholly adopts, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 9), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff’s claims except for those against Defendants Timothy McCarley and Greg Hayden are DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. All other matters in this case remain with the magistrate judge for handling of pretrial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina April 25, 2022 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
]]>
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.
