IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION

Kelvin Jerome Durham, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-2575-TMC ) Union County; David Taylor, ) ORDER individually and in his Official ) Capacity; Wendy Childers, ) individually and in her Official ) Capacity; Brad Woods, individually ) and in his Official Capacity; and John ) Sherfield, individually and in his ) Official Capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________)

Plaintiff Kelvin Jerome Durham, represented by counsel, originally brought this action in South Carolina state court against Defendants, asserting state law claims for malicious prosecution, gross negligence, and violations of state civil rights, as well as federal claims pursuant to

for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and a claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services,

(1978). (ECF No. 1-1 at 6–13). On September 12, 2019, Defendants removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction arising from Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with

(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (f) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. On May 10, 2021, Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46). On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 51) and Defendants filed their reply on July 22, 2021 (ECF No. 54). Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, his Monell claim, and his state-law claim for malicious prosecution. (ECF No. 56 at 20). The Report further recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and that

such claims be remanded to the Union County, South Carolina Court of Common Pleas. Id. All parties are represented by counsel and are, therefore, presumed to be on notice of their right to file specific objections to the Report. Young v. Berryhill, Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-03437-JMC,

, at *1 (D.S.C. Feb. 1, 2018). However, to date, no objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now expired. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. 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,

(4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 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,

(4th Cir. 1982)). 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.

(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.,

(D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis,

, 199– 200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Thus, having reviewed the Report and the record and, finding no clear error, the court agrees with, and wholly ADOPTS, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 56), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the court GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46). Specifically, the court

GRANTS the motion as to Plaintiff’s federal claims under Monell and § 1983 as well as his state- law claim for malicious prosecution. As to Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for gross negligence and violation of the South Carolina constitution, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to

(c)(3) and they are hereby REMANDED to the Union County Court of Common Pleas. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the remaining state-law claims is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina September 21, 2021

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.