Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020170215G22/ELLISON%20v.%20PROFFIT
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 08:09:55
Document Index: 383352554

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

ELLISON v. PROFFIT | Civil Action No. 4:16-847-BHH. | 42 U.S.C. 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers | Leagle.com
ELLISON v. PROFFIT
Civil Action No. 4:16-847-BHH.
Michelle Ellison and David Ellison, Plaintiffs,
Deputy Brian Proffit; John Does; Glen Kirby, and Kenney Boone, Defendants.
Michelle Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick James McLaughlin , Wukela Law Firm.
David Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick James McLaughlin , Wukela Law Firm.
Deputy Brian Proffit, Defendant, represented by Lisa Arlene Thomas , Thompson and Henry.
Glen Kirby, Defendant, represented by Lisa Arlene Thomas , Thompson and Henry.
Kenney Boone, Defendant, represented by Lisa Arlene Thomas , Thompson and Henry.
Plaintiffs Michelle Ellison and David Ellison ("Plaintiffs"), through counsel, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 24, 2017. (ECF No. 43.) In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted in part, and denied in part. (Id. at 17.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution relating to the hindering and resisting charges and § 1983 civil conspiracy should be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge further recommends, however, that at this early stage of the litigation, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for § 1983 malicious prosecution as to the breach-of-peace charges and supervisory liability, along with Defendants' assertion of Eleventh-Amendment Immunity, should be denied. (Id.) Objections to the Report were due by February 7, 2017. Neither Defendants nor Plaintiffs have filed objections.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 43) by specific reference into this Order. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution relating to the hindering and resisting charges and § 1983 civil conspiracy, and DENIED as to Plaintiffs' claims for § 1983 malicious prosecution as to the breach-of-peace charges and supervisory liability, along with Defendants' assertion of Eleventh-Amendment Immunity.