Jones v. Pearson et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 39 Motion for Entry of Default filed by Johnny Jones, 38 Motion to Stay, filed by Sgt Pearson, Mrs Allen, Q Stuckey, Q Remberts, Jerry Washington, Cecilia Reynol ds, 35 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Sgt Pearson, Mrs Allen, Q Stuckey, Q Remberts, Jerry Washington, Cecilia Reynolds. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is granted and this action is dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 39) is denied and defendants' motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 38) is moot. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/25/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Johnny Jones,

) C/A No.: 1:13-1330-JFA-SVH
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Sgt. Pearson, Special Investigation Unit;
)
Mrs. Allen; Case Worker Q. Remberts;
)
Associate Jerry Washington; and Warden
)
Cecilia Reynolds, individually and in their
)
official capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )
The pro se plaintiff, Johnny Jones, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department
of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was
placed in administrative segregation in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
and that his due process rights were violated.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared Report and
Recommendation and opines that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment2 should be

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of
the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion
for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.

1

granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 44) which was filed on March 3, 2014. However, neither party
has lodged any objections and the time within which to do so has expired. In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983).
The court has carefully reviewed the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, and finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly
and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report
is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is granted
and this action is dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 39) is denied
and defendants’ motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 38) is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 25, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2