Massey v. Branham et al

Filing 138

ORDER adopting 134 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' 120 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing case with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/27/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
John K. Massey, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
J.R. Branham; York County; NE Schifferle; )
and B. Schettler;
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 0:14-cv-01876-TLW

ORDER

Plaintiff John K. Massey, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment on April 29, 2016. ECF No. 120. Plaintiff filed a Response, ECF No. 126, and
Defendants filed a Reply, ECF No. 133. This matter is now before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on January 11, 2017 by United States Magistrate
Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends
granting summary judgment and dismissing the case. ECF No. 134. Plaintiff filed Objections to
the Report on January 25, 2017. ECF No. 136. This matter is now ripe for decision.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting
this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an

objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report,
the Plaintiff’s objections, and relevant filings and concludes that the Magistrate Judge set forth
specific facts and carefully analyzed the applicable law. This Court accepts the factual and legal
analysis by the Magistrate Judge in the Report over Plaintiff’s objections. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. 136, are OVERRULED. The Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 134, is hereby ACCEPTED, and, for the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 120, is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 27, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina