Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

Charlie Edward McClinton, Plaintiff, v. John Ewing, Jr., of Richland County Sheriff's Department; Ellis Pearson, of Richland County Sheriff's Department; H.J. Pooles, of Richland County Sheriff's Department; et al Defendants.

ORDER

PATRICK DUFFY, District Judge

This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants John Ewing, Jr., Ellis Pearson, and Harry J. Polis' motion for summary judgment be granted. The record includes the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with this Court's Order of Reference and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Because plaintiff is pro se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.

Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters and submit findings and recommendations to this Court.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report.

A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is herewith ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment of defendants Ewing, Pearson and Polis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted as the order of this Court.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

McCLINTON v. EWING
(Sep 1, 2006)