Robinson v. Scaturo et al

Filing 68

ORDER adopting 65 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' 52 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant Swan's 30 Motion to Dismiss; and granting Defendants McGill and Wilson's 34 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/16/2017. (mwal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Shawn Michael Robinson,

) Civil Action No. 1:16-2311-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
vs.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Holly Scaturo, Director; Ms. Kimberly
)
Poholchuk, B.M.C. Program Director;
)
Ms. Cynthia Helff, B.M.C.; Dr. Kelly
)
Gothard, Psychologist; Dr. Gordon E.
)
Brown, Chief Psychologist; Dr.
)
Rozanna Tross, Psychologist; Dr. Amy
)
Swan, Psychiatrist; Ms. Marie Gehle,
)
Evaluator; Dr. Donna Schwartz-Watts,
)
Psychologist; Capt. Frank Abney,
)
P.S.O. Supervisor; Mr. Galen Sanders,
)
Chief Nursing Administrator; Mr.
)
Harold Alexander, R.N.; Ms. Charlene
)
Hickman, R.N.; Dr. John McGill,
)
Director of Department of Mental
)
Health; and Mr. Allen Wilson, Attorney
)
General,
)
)
Defendants. )
Shawn Michael Robinson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Holly Scaturo, Director, Ms.
Kimberly Poholchuk, B.M.C. Program Director, Ms. Cynthia Helff, B.M.C., Dr. Kelly
Gothard, Psychologist, Dr. Gordon E. Brown, Chief Psychologist, Dr. Rozanna Tross,
Psychologist, Dr. Amy Swan, Psychiatrist, Ms. Marie Gehle, Evaluator, Dr. Donna
Schwartz-Watts, Psychologist, Capt. Frank Abney, P.S.O. Supervisor, Mr. Galen
Sanders, Chief Nursing Administrator, Mr. Harold Alexander, R.N., Ms. Charlene
Hickman, R.N., Dr. John McGill, Director of Department of Mental Health, and Mr. Allen
Wilson, Attorney General (“Defendants”), alleging several violations of his constitutional

1

rights. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02,
D.S.C., the action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for
pretrial handling and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Magistrate Judge
Hodges recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 52), Defendant Swan’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30), and Defendants
McGill and Wilson’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34). The Report (ECF No. 65) sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the court
incorporates them without recitation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71 (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). However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed
only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).

2

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed an objection (ECF No. 67) to the Report, which the Court has
carefully reviewed. The filing fails to state a specific objection or direct the Court to any
specific error in the Magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations that
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on, and/or dismissal of, Plaintiff’s
numerous claims. Rather, Plaintiff references several other cases pending in this District
against some of the same Defendants, and states that “Plaintiff is seeking to dismiss
without prejudice pending the outcome of these cases.” (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff’s one
page objections are utterly nonspecific and do not invoke de novo review. After
reviewing the record, the Court find that the Report and accurately summarizes the
facts, applies the correct principles of law, and evinces no clear error. The Court agrees
with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge, and hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections,
which are without merit.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules
Plaintiff’s objections and adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED,
Defendant Swan’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED, and Defendants
McGill and Wilson’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 16, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina

3