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)

Download PDF
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.

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?