Thomas v. Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center et al

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING 45 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Lt Glover-Blanding, Lt McMillian. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/18/2014. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION

Christopher L. Thomas,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sumter-Lee Regional Detention
Center; Lt. McMillian; and Lt.
Glover-Blanding,
Defendants.
_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:13-1737-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher L. Thomas, a state prisoner, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On June 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a Report and Recommendation
("Report") recommending that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) be
granted, and the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 45).1 Plaintiff was advised of
his right to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 45 at11). However, Plaintiff has not filed any
objections to the Report and the time for doing so has expired.2
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pre-trial
proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge.
2
The court notes that Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion, filed
January 23, 2014, included a return address at Wateree River Correctional Institution. (ECF No.
23). However, Plaintiff was ordered to inform the court of any address change (ECF No. 14),
and his current address on the docket is listed as Kirkland Correctional Institution. Additionally,
no mail has been returned undeliverable and, as of the date of this Order, the South Carolina
Department of Corrections website lists Plaintiff’s address as Kirkland Correctional Institution.

adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file
specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the
district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 45) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED
with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
July 18, 2014

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.