Williamson v. Sterling et al

Filing 143

ORDER adopting the 138 Report and Recommendation, granting the Defendants' 79 , 80 , 81 motions for summary judgment, denying the Plaintiff's 77 motion for an injunction, and granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within ten days of the filing of this Order to provide the names of the Jane and Joe Does who were allegedly personally involved in violating certain of his constitutional rights. (Amended Complaint due by 4/20/2017. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45.) Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/10/2017. (bgoo) Modified to edit text on 4/11/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
DUSTIN ROBERT WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiffs,

§
§
§
vs.
§
§
BRIAN STERLING, and/or Jane or John Doe, §
SCDC; DELORIS CHARLTON, Administrator,§
Barnwell County Detention Center; ED
§
CARROLL, Sheriff; individually and in their §
official capacities; DAVID MILLER, Deputy §
Solicitor; and JACK HAMOCK, Solicitor; in §
their individual capacities,
§
Defendants.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:15-4755-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION,
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the
Court for (1) review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate
Judge suggesting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted and Plaintiff’s motion for
an injunction be denied, and (2) consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to amend. The Report was made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report 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).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 21, 2017, and the Clerk of Court entered
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, which includes his motion to amend, on April 5, 2017.
Plaintiff has submitted to the Court twenty-nine objections to the Report. But the objections
generally fall into two categories: (1) Plaintiff’s recitation of arguments the Magistrate Judge has
already considered and rejeted and, (2) Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of wrongdoing. As to the
former, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of those issues and need not set forth
another discussion here. And regarding the latter, Plaintiff’s complaints are so lacking in merit as
not to justify any analysis. See United States v. Patel, 879 F.2d 292, 295 (7th Cir. 1989) (“When
issues patently lack merit, the reviewing court is not obliged to devote scarce judicial resources to
a written discussion of them.”).
In Plaintiff’s objections, he asks to amend his complaint within ten days of the filing of this
Order so, the Court assumes, he can provide the names of the Jane and Joe Does he alleges were
personally involved in violating certain of this constitutional rights. The Court will grant the
motion.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court overrules the objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint within ten days of the filing of this Order is
GRANTED so he can provide the names of the Jane and Joe Does who were allegedly personally
involved in violating certain of his constitutional rights.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 10th day of April, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3