Hewitt v. Ward et al
ORDER ADOPTING 61 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is ordered that Defendants' 41 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, Plaintiff's 52 Motion to Deny Summary Judgment is denied and this case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/12/2013. (abuc)
Hewitt v. Ward et al
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No. 0:12-2373-MGL
Robert Ward; Willie T. Smith; Wayne )
OPINION AND ORDER
McCabe; Officer Helms,
Steven Lee Hewitt,
Plaintiff Steven Hewitt (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for
pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 16, 2013, Defendants
Robert Ward, Willie T. Smith, Wayne McCabe, and Officer Helms (“Defendants”) filed a motion
for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41.) Since Plaintiff is pro se in this matter, the court entered an
order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on January 17, 2013, advising
Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate
response. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on March 14, 2013, as a motion to deny
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52), and Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF
On July 22, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants’
motion for summary judgment be granted and Plaintiff’s motion to deny Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 61.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he
failed to do so. (ECF No. 61 at 10.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired
on August 8, 2013.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which
a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for
clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 61) by reference into this order. It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED,
Plaintiff’s motion to deny summary judgment (ECF No. 52) is DENIED, and this case dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
August 12, 2013
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?