Raye T. Nelson, Sr. v. Town of Moncks Corner and Officer Andrew Turner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Raye T. Nelson, Sr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-12755-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Town of Moncks Corner and ) Officer Andrew Turner, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Raye T. Nelson, Sr.’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se amended second complaint alleging various state law claims and federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8.) On December 15, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to partially dismiss, specifically seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim under § 1983 against the Town of Moncks Corner, Plaintiff’s assault and battery claim against Defendants Turner and Town of Moncks Corner, and Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants Turner and Town of Moncks Corner. (ECF No. 10.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.

On March 10, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 18.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the motion as to Plaintiff’s assault and battery claim against Defendant Turner and Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as to both Defendants but deny the motion as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for municipal liability against Defendant Town of Moncks Corner. Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are 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). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, no objections have been filed, and the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 18), and the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss (ECF No. 10). Specifically, the Court grants the motion as to Plaintiff’s assault and battery claim against Defendant Turner and as to Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants Turner and Town of Moncks Corner. The Court denies the motion as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for municipal liability against Defendant Town of Moncks Corner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge March 30, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina