Watkins v. Jones et al

Filing 167

ORDER adopting the 150 Report and Recommendation, granting Defendant Jones's 91 Motion to Dismiss, granting Defendants Lawless, Simmons, and Smith's 112 Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing without prejudice Watkins's claims against Defendants Surratt, Blackwell, Taylor, and Phyall, and denying Watkins's 146 motion to rule in his favor. To the extent Watkins has raised any state law claims against these Defendants, those claims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/29/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
MARSHALL LEON WATKINS,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
vs.
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:17-135-MGL-PJG
§
NURSE JONES, LIEUTENANT SMITH,
§
LIEUTENANT SURRATT, SGT LAWLESS §
LIEUTENANT BLACKWELL; LT. TAYLOR, §
MS. PHYALL, and JAMES SIMMONS,
§
Defendants.
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANT JONES'S MOTION TO DISMISS,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS LAWLESS, SIMMONS,
AND SMITH'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CLAIMS
AGAINST THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS,
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE COURT TO RULE IN HIS FAVOR
Plaintiff Marshall Leon Watkins, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting (1) Defendant Nurse Jones’s motion to
dismiss be granted; (2) Defendants Sergeant. Lawless, James Simmons, and Lieutenant Smith’s
motion for summary judgment be granted; (3) the claims against Defendants Lieutenant Surratt,
Lieutenant Blackwell, Lieutenant Taylor, and Ms. Phyall be dismissed without prejudice in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); and (4) Watkins’s motion for the Court to rule in his favor be

denied. 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 31, 2018. The parties have filed numerous
documents since then. The Court enumerates the pertinent ones here:
November 5, 2018

The Clerk filed Watkins’s request the Court set a trial against Jones, along
with his conclusory allegations of wrongdoing;

November 7, 2018

The Clerk filed Watkins’s submission “ask[ing] the Court to oppose” the
motions filed by Defendants;

November 9, 2018

The Clerk filed Watkins’s objections to the Report;

November 9, 2018

Jones filed her reply to Watkins’s objections;

November 13, 2018 The Clerk filed Watkins’s supplemental objections;
November 13, 2918 Lawless, Simmons, and Smith filed their reply to Watkins’s objections;
November 15, 2018 The Clerk filed Watkins’s second set of supplemental objections;
November 19, 2018 Jones filed a sur reply; and
November 26, 2018 Lawless, Simmons, and Smith filed a sur-reply.

2

The Court begins with its consideration of Watkins’s November 5, 2018, and November 7.
2018, submissions. They are so lacking in substance and merit as to require no discussion. Suffice
it to say the Court will deny the requests contained therein.
Watkins’s objections and two sets of supplemental objections fare no better. Watkins
presents no specific objections to the Report. He instead hurls one conclusory accusation after
another at Defendants, yet provides no legal support for his claims. Therefore, the Court will
overrule his objections.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court overrules Watkins’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court (1) Defendant Jones’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED,
(2) Defendants Lawless, Simmons, and Smith’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; (3)
the claims against Defendants Surratt, Blackwell, Taylor, and Phyall are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); and (4) Watkins's motion for the Court to
rule in his favor is DENIED.
To the extent Watkins has raised any state claims against Defendants, those claims are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE so he may pursue them in state court if he wishes to do
so.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 29th day of November, 2018, 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 the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4