Mabry v. Williamsburg County Sheriff Department et al
Filing
30
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27 , 18 The court has reviewed the plaintiffs objections and finds that they are withoutmerit. Accordingly, the defendants motion for summary judgment is granted.. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/3/09. (ahen, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
E r n e s t Lee Mabry, #136119,
) ) P l a in tif f , ) vs. ) ) Williamsburg County Sheriff's ) D e p a rtm e n t; Justin Whack; Willie Brown; ) a n d Officer Ballard, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ______________________________________ )
C/A No.: 0:07-3574-JFA-PJG
ORDER
T h e pro se plaintiff, Ernest Lee Mabry, is an inmate at Evans Correctional Institution, a facility of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). He initiated this action p u rsu a n t to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants contending that they violated his c o n s titu tio n a l rights by conducting an illegal search and seizure. He seeks damages in the a m o u n t of $250,000. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n wherein she suggests that this court should grant the defendants' motion for
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
s u m m a ry judgment.2
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law
o n this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The plaintiff filed timely o b jectio n s to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on February 1 2 , 2009. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge suggests that defendant Williamsburg County S h e rif f 's Department is a not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that as a n arm of the State, the Williamsburg County Sheriff's Department is immune from suit under th e Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State P o lic e , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Additionally, the Magistrate Judge concludes that defendants W h ac k , Brown, and Ballard, to the extent they are sued in their official capacities, are s im ila rly immune from suit. The Magistrate Judge also suggests that the individual defendants are entitled to q u a lif ie d immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). In particular, the Magistrate J u d g e finds that the plaintiff has not met his burden to survive summary judgment in that he h a s not presented sufficient evidence to refute the defendants' proof that the search was c o n se n su a l. A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the court finds th e Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and the Report is incorporated herein by
An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff responded to the motion.
2
2
re f ere n c e. The court has reviewed the plaintiff's objections and finds that they are without m e rit. Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.
M arc h 3, 2009 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina
J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
