Chastain v. South Carolina Hiway Patrol - Document 39
ORDER ADOPTING 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Cpl Ligdon, South Carolina Hiway Patrol; denying 38 Request to stop filing fee filed by Jack T Chastain, Jr, denying 32 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Jack T Chastain, Jr, and any claim for negligence the plaintiff may be asserting is dismissed. Case is dismissed in its entirety. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/7/2012. (ydav, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jack T. Chastain, Jr., # 21173-045,
South Carolina Hi-way Patrol and
Civil Action No.: 5:10-cv-2453-TLW-JRM
The plaintiff, Jack T. Chastain, Jr. (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, on
September 20, 2010. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey to whom this case had
previously been assigned. (Doc. # 35). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
District Court grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 20), deny the plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 32), and dismiss sua sponte any negligence claim the plaintiff
may be asserting under South Carolina law. (Doc. # 35). The plaintiff filed objections to the Report.
(Doc. # 37). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
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)
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. # 35). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the defendants’
motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 20) is GRANTED, the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. # 32) is DENIED, and any claim for negligence the plaintiff may be asserting is
DISMISSED. The plaintiff’s request to stop filing fee (Doc. # 38) is also DENIED. See Dec. 10,
2010 Order (Doc. # 11); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and (b). In light of these rulings, this case is
DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
March 7, 2012
Florence, South Carolina