Watkins v. Jones et al

Filing 207

ORDER adopting the 198 Report and Recommendation, granting Defendant Cross's 181 Motion for Summary Judgment, terminating as moot Watkins's 188 192 motions for a hearing and to review the videotape. To the extent Watkins has raised any state claims against Cross, those claims are dismissed without prejudice so he may pursue them in state court if he wishes to do so. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/3/2019. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
MARSHALL LEON WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KEVIN CROSS,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:17-135-MGL-PJG
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT CROSS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Marshall Leon Watkins (Watkins), a self-represented state prisoner, filed this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant Kevin Cross’s (Cross) 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 March 8, 2019, the Clerk of Court entered
Watkins’s objections on March 19, 2019, and Cross filed his reply to the objections on March 20,
2019. The Clerk entered Watkins’s sur-reply on March 25, 2019, and his supplemental objections
on March 28, 2019. The Court has carefully reviewed Watkins’s objections, sur-reply, and
supplemental objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment
accordingly.
Watkins’s objections consist of conclusory statements concerning, for instance, the Report
being “bias[ed] and prejudice[d],” his inability to “get a fair trial.” and his wanting to “come to the
court room and demonstrate [his] damages.” Objections 1.
Watkins states in his supplemental objections he is “objecting to the [C]ourt granting the
defendants motion because [he is still] suffering from all that the defendant did to [him].
Supplemental Objections 1. He contends his eyes are “still watering and burning from Kevin Cross
gassing [him] with the chemical munitions.” Id. Further, according to Watkins, the “summary
judgment standard [does] not apply to [him] and [ his ] lawsuit because the defendants have admitted
to doing what they did to [him] and they have said they [were] guilty. So the rule [does] not apply
to [his] case.” Id.
Watkins has failed to offer any specific objections to the Report. “In the absence of specific
written objection, the district court [can] adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation . . . without
conducting a de novo review[.]” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th
Cir. 2005) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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.

2

Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Cross’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Accordingly, Watkins’s motions for a hearing and to review the videotape are RENDERED AS
MOOT.
To the extent Watkins has raised any state claims against Cross, those claims are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE so he may pursue them in state court if he wishes to do
so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 3rd day of April, 2019, 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.

3