Frederick v. Magill et al
Filing
53
OPINION AND ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation 43 and granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment 32 , 35 . Signed by Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr. on 7/28/2016. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jessie Frederick,
Plaintiff,
vs.
John Magill, Director, S.C.D.M.H.; Holly
Scaturo, Director, S.V.P.T.P.; Kimberly
Poholchuk, Program Coor., S.V.P.T.P.;
Warden Stevenson, Warden, B.R.C.F., all
in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 0:15-3399-HMH-PJG
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Pursuant to a civil commitment, Jessie
Frederick (“Frederick”) resides in the South Carolina Department of Mental Health’s Sexually
Violent Predator Treatment Program (“SVPTP”). Proceeding pro se, Frederick alleges several 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Defendants.2 In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate
1
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (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. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2
To the extent Frederick asserts additional constitutional claims in his amended
complaint, the magistrate judge previously found that Frederick provided no allegations to
support such claims. (Report & Recommendation 2 n.1, ECF No. 43.) Further, the court finds
that Frederick has failed to assert any additional allegations in his objections that would support
such claims.
Judge Gossett recommends granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Report &
Recommendation 1, 6, ECF No. 43.)
Frederick filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Frederick’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Despite reasserting his claims and providing additional factual background, Frederick’s
objections have failed to address or object to the specific grounds on which the magistrate judge
based her recommendation. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Frederick’s objections
are without merit. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the
record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett’s Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein by reference.
2
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, docket numbers 32 and
35, are granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
July 28, 2016
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
3
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?