McClain v. Fate et al

Filing 15

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendation. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to all Defendants except Defendant Fate. The matter is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 1/14/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Daniel R. McClain,

)
) C/A No. 0:15-4516-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
Mr. Lefford Fate, Medical Director,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Daniel R. McClain is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (SCDC) who currently is housed at Turbeville Correctional Institution in Turbeville,
South Carolina. On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint against numerous Defendants,
contending that his constitutional rights have been violated in various respects. Plaintiff brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, and applicable precedents. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff had failed
to assert sufficient factual allegations as to all Defendants except Defendants Mr. Lefford Fate and
Dr. Paul Drago. The Magistrate Judge further determined that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable
claim against Defendant Drago. Accordingly, on December 11, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the complaint be summarily
dismissed without prejudice as to all Defendants except Defendant Fate. Plaintiff filed no objection

to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The complaint is dismissed without
prejudice as to all Defendants except Defendant Fate. The matter is recommitted to the Magistrate
Judge for further pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 14, 2016.

2