Jones v. McCall et al

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING 79 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting 61 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Michael McCall, Head Nurse McDonald. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/22/2014. (gmil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Anthony Bernard Jones, Sr.,

) Civil Action No. 0:13-1702-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Warden Michael McCall, Head Nurse
)
)
McDonald,
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
Plaintiff Forrest Dr. Anthony Bernard Jones, Sr., (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
brought this action pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 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 February 27, 2014, Defendants Warden Michael McCall and Head Nurse
McDonald (“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61.) 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 February 28, 2014, advising Plaintiff of the
importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response.
(ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to respond to the motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 65), and filed a response in opposition on March 31, 2014.
(ECF No. 70.) On July 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gossett issued a Report recommending
that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted because, inter alia, Defendants,
in their official capacities, are immune from suit, and Plaintiff failed to present any evidence

that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. (ECF No. 79.). The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections
to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
(ECF No. 79 at 10.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on August
4, 2014.
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. 79) by reference
into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 61) is GRANTED, and this case dismissed.
-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
August 22, 2014

-3-