Matthews v. Scaturo et al
ORDER adopting and incorporating 49 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant Wilson's 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting Defendant Swan's 25 Motion to Dismiss; and denying Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and motion for fast and speedy trial. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/26/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mitchell Shane Matthews,
Ms. Holly Scaturo; Ms. Kimberly
Poholchuk; Ms. Cynthia Helff; Dr.
Kelly Gothard; Dr. Gorden Brown;
Dr. Rozanna Tross; Dr. Amy Swan;
Dr. Marie Gehle; Dr. Donna Schwartz- )
Watts; Capt. Frank Abney; Mr. Galen
Sanders; Mr. Harold Alexander; Ms.
Charlene Hickman; Dr. John McGill;
and Mr. Allen Wilson,
Civil No. 1:16-cv-2314-BHH
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action alleging
several violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is involuntarily committed to the
custody of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (“SCDMH”) under the
provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-10, et seq.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary
determinations. On June 5, 2017, Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s claims and recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment and to dismiss. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to identify
a genuine dispute of material fact as to the constitutionality of the dental and medical care
provided to Plaintiff. Also, the Magistrate Judge determined that to the extent Plaintiff
asserts a claim for medical malpractice, Plaintiff has not filed the requisite affidavit in
accordance with S.C. Code Ann. § 15-36-100(B). Next, the Magistrate Judge determined
that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims
and his claim that he is subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. With respect to
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants confiscated his novel, the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissal because Plaintiff has already sued on this claim. See Matthews v. Magill, Civil
No. 1:16-cv-3362-BHH. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge determined that to the extent Plaintiff
is suing Defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages, Defendants are entitled
to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right
to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To
date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
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 only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
Report (ECF No. 49); and the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 37), Defendant Wilson’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17), and Defendant Swan’s
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25). Lastly, having found that Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment and/or dismissal of this matter, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s “motion
for evidentiary hearing and motion for fast and speedy trial” (ECF No. 47).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 26, 2017
Charleston, 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?