Holcomb v. Greenville County Detention Center
ORDER adopting 65 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Plaintiff's 51 Motion for Injunctive Relief and 57 Motion for Summary Judgment are terminated as moot. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 1/29/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Rabbi Dean Alton Holcomb,
) Civil Action No. 1:14-3477-MGL
Lt. W. Kramer and Sgt. A. Chaudhary,
Plaintiff Rabbi Dean Alton Holcomb, (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner who is proceeding pro
se, filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial handling.
On January 6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, (“the
Report”), (ECF No. 65), recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
53), be granted. Objections to the Report were due by January 25, 2016. Plaintiff did not file any
objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). In 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.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the
record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 65), and finding no clear error
in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 53), is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief,
(ECF No. 51), and Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 57), are both properly terminated as
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
January 29, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
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?