Peterson v. Stephens et al

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 38 Report and Recommendation, granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 4/4/2013. (jpet, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Robbie Wayne Peterson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Margaret Stephens; Sheriff Steve Mueller, )
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 0:12-cv-01366-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Paige J. Gossett’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) of the District of South
Carolina, and filed on March 7, 2013. Plaintiff Robbie Wayne Peterson (“Plaintiff”),
a South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) inmate proceeding pro se,
filed this action on or around May 22, 2012, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 ECF
No. 1. Defendants Margaret Lewis and Sheriff Steve Mueller (“Defendants”) moved
for summary judgment on October 29, 2012.2 ECF No. 27. An order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), was issued by the Magistrate
Judge on October 30, 2012. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff filed his response in opposition
to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on or around December 20,

1

Prisoner pleadings are deemed filed at the time that they are delivered to prison authorities for
mailing to the Court’s clerk office. Houston v. Lack, 493 U.S. 920 (1989).
2
 According to Defendants, Cherokee County Detention Center does not employ a “Margaret
Stephens” and Plaintiff is actually referring to an individual named Margaret Lewis. See Def.’s Mem.
Supp. Summ. J., ECF No. 27-1 at 1; Lewis Aff., ECF No. 27-2.   

Page 1 of 4 

2012, and the Defendants filed a reply on December 27, 2012. See ECF Nos. 36
& 37.
Under established procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge
Gossett made a careful review of the pro se complaint pursuant to the procedural
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends that this Court grant the
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Report & Recommendation, ECF No.
38. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons
discussed herein, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety,
and grants the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to
allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall,
454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). A court may not construct the plaintiff's legal
arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1993), nor is a district
court required to recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most
concerted efforts to unravel them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1277 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
Page 2 of 4 

determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976).

This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made,
and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court
may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
instructions."

Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and

Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Furthermore,

“[t]he

failure

to

file

objections

recommendation waives any further right to appeal.”

to

the

report

and

Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see Carter v. Pritchard,
34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Objections were due on March
25, 2013. Both parties received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, which
contained a “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 38.

The Notice warned the parties that

“failure to timely file specific written objections . . . [results] in waiver of the right
to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation.”
Id. Neither the Defendants nor the Plaintiff have filed any objections to the Report
and Recommendation.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable
Page 3 of 4 

law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its
entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 4 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4