Smyth v. Urch et al

Filing 156

ORDER ADOPTING 152 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying 135 Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice and with leave to refile. The Court grants Defendants leave to refile a renewed motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this order. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/7/2015. (gmil)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Keith Adger Smyth, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Neal Urch, Deputy J. Brock, and ) Deputy K. Ashley, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) Civil Action No.: 0:14-cv-03476-RBH-PJG ORDER Plaintiff Keith Adger Smyth, a state pretrial detainee1 proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and an amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above named Defendants alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF Nos. 1 & 13. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.2 See R & R, ECF No. 152. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with leave to refile. R & R at 1, 5. 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo 1 Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Broad River Correctional Institution, a state prison located in Columbia, South Carolina. ECF No. 148. 2 The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without limits. Gordon directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not require those courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.”). determination of those portions of the R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No parties have filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)). After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 152] of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 135] is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to refile. The Court GRANTS Defendants leave to refile a renewed motion for summary judgment within thirty days of the date of the entry of this order. The Court REFERS this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Florence, South Carolina October 7, 2015 s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?