Hewitt v. Johnson et al

Filing 77

ORDER adopting the 75 Report and Recommendation, terminating Defendants' 22 Motion to Dismiss, granting Defendants' 51 Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/14/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
STEVEN HEWITT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAJOR JOEY JOHNSON,
CHAPLAIN EDDIE HILL, AND
SGT. REGINA STRICKLAND,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:16-04010-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
This case was filed as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be terminated, and
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. 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 October 26, 2017, but Plaintiff failed to file any
objections to the Report. “[I]n 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.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's
note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22, is TERMINATED,
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 14th day of November, 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 30 days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.