Allen v. Darlington County Detention Center et al
Filing
36
ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 33 Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein, and the Court grants Defendants' 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/5/2019. (lbak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dandriguez Allen, Jr.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Darlington County Detention
)
Center and Patricia Ray,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-1588-BHH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated in the
Darlington County Detention Center. On November 6, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a response on November 30, 2018, and Defendants filed
a reply on December 7, 2018. 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 January 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges
issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that
the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of
material fact as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs, and that Plaintiff’s claim that inadequate warnings caused him to
fall fails to establish a constitutional violation. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
was a notice advising Plaintiff of his 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.
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 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
analysis.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 33) and
incorporates it herein, and the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 27).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 5, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina
2
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?