Hubbard v. Spartanburg County Detention Facility et al

Filing 63

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ordering that the defendants Spartanburg County Detention Facility, LT. M. Jones, Maj. Neal Urch, and Capt. Hollifield are dismissed from this case without prejudice a nd without issuance and service of process. It is further ordered that 20 Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is terminated as moot. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 4/15/2015. (gmil) Modified to edit docket text on 4/15/2015 (gmil).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Bruce Trey Hubbard,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Spartanburg County Detention Facility; LT.
M. Jones; D-3 Deputy T. Hadden; SGT W.
Church; Maj. Neal Urch; SGT K. Ashley;
Capt. Hollifield; 1st SGT L. Pilgrim; Cpl. M.
Higgins; Chaplain Ken Apple; Mr. Bianco,
Medical Doctor; Lt. Hayes; and Cpl. L.
Blackwell,
Defendants.
__________________________________

) Civil Action No. 0:14-2910-BHH
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Robert Bruce Trey Hubbard (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages
and injunctive relief for the defendants’ alleged constitutional violations. (ECF. No. 1.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 15, 2015.
(ECF No. 48.)

The plaintiff filed objections on January 30, 2015. (ECF No. 54.) The

Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on
this matter and the court incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff filed this action against the defendants alleging inter alia that he has
been denied mail, property, religious services, a grievance process, attorney phone calls,

access to a law library, legal copies and adequate food portions. In her Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the plaintiff’s claim associated with the denial of a
grievance process be dismissed. She also recommends the case be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process against the defendants Spartanburg
County Detention Facility, LT. M. Jones, Maj. Neal Urch, and Capt. Hollifield. (ECF No.
48.) On February 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed an untitled document which the Court liberally
construes as objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 54.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir.1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

2

DISCUSSION
The plaintiff objects to the dismissal of the defendants Spartanburg County
Detention Facility, Lt. M. Jones, Maj. Neal Urch and Capt. Hollifield from this case. After
a careful review of the plaintiff's objections, it is fair to say that the plaintiff does not make
any specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. Rather, the plaintiff's response
to the Report and Recommendation merely copies portions of the United States
Constitution, case law, and other documents. These authorities do not direct the court to
any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Court has carefully reviewed the plaintiff’s
objections and has made a de novo review of the entire Report and Recommendation and
finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts and applied the
correct principles of law. Upon review, the Court finds the plaintiff’s objections have no
merit and are hereby overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the court overrules the
plaintiff's objections and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is
incorporated herein by reference. It is, therefore
ORDERED that the defendants Spartanburg County Detention Facility, LT. M.
Jones, Maj. Neal Urch, and Capt. Hollifield are dismissed from this case without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is terminated as moot.
(ECF No. 20.)
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
April 15, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4