Henderson v. Southern Health Partners et al

Filing 70

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 66 Report and Recommendation, granting 49 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Southern Health Partners, Pam Ard. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/11/2015. (asni, )

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

Shawn Michael Henderson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Southern Health Partners; Pam Ard, Southern
Health Partners,
Defendants.
___________________________________

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

Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-01146-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Shawn Michael Henderson (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented state prisoner,
brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court
for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 66), filed
on February 2, 2015, recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
49) be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this
matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the
matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 66 at 8.)
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.

In the absence of objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the

recommendation. 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 from the
judgment of the District Court based upon such 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).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court finds that the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and the law. The court
ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 66). For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED (ECF No. 49).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
May 11, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina