Nickens v. Bamberg County Detention Center

Filing 12

ORDER accepting the 8 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's claims for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 6/27/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Craishaun L. Nickens,
C/A No. 0:17-cv-00031-TLW
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Tasha Wilson, Bamberg County Detention
Center,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Craishaun L. Nickens, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before this Court for review of a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) filed by Magistrate Judge Gossett, ECF No. 8, to whom this case was
assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
DSC. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. ECF No. 8. Objections to the R&R
were due on February 2, 2017, and Plaintiff has not filed objections.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the R&R, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).

1

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R in this case. Noting that Plaintiff filed no
objections, the R&R, ECF No. 8, is hereby ACCEPTED. The Court also notes that the standard
for a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need is the same for pretrial detainees
under the Fourteenth Amendment as it is for prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. See Brown
v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir. 2001); Belcher v. Oliver, 898 F.2d 32, 34 (4th Cir. 1990).
Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, Plaintiff’s claims are
hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
s/Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
June 27, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2