Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0000655.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:06:10+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff, Joshua Allan Large, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution, and state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. Pending before the Court is Defendants' [ECF No. 29] motion for summary judgment and Defendants' [ECF No. 31] motion to unseal.
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 50] of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III filed on January 29, 2018. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to the § 1983 malicious prosecution claim because Plaintiff could not establish that the charges were terminated in Plaintiff's favor. The Magistrate Judge recommended the remaining state law claims be remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and the motion to unseal could be addressed by the state court.
Plaintiff timely filed Objections [ECF No. 51] to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (2010). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . .; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
When no genuine issue of any material fact exists, summary judgment is appropriate. See Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). The facts and inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. However, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff's § 1983 malicious prosecution claim because Plaintiff could not establish that his charges were terminated in his favor. Plaintiff's charges were dismissed following his participation in a pretrial intervention program.

References: § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1367
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983