Greene v. Perry Correctional Institution
Filing
62
OPINION & ORDER adopting the 59 Report and Recommendation, granting the 42 Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/30/2019. (lbak)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Wilton Q. Greene, III,
) Civil Action No. 1:18-1731-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
Cecil Hawkins, M. Toth, and J. Glenn,
)
Defendants. )
)
_________________________________
Plaintiff Wilton Q. Green, III (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action
pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 13.) In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial handling and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”).
On December 18, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF
No. 42.)1 Since Plaintiff is pro se in this matter, the Court entered an order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on December 18, 2018, advising
Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an
adequate response. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on February 15,
2019 (ECF No. 56), and Defendants filed replies on February 18, 2019 (ECF No. 57) and
February 19, 2019 (ECF No. 58) respectively. On May 2, 2019, Magistrate Judge Hodges
issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted
for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 59.) The Magistrate
1
The motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) was originally filed by Defendants Toth and Glenn,
but Defendant Hawkins’ motion for joinder (ECF No. 47) was granted on December 26, 2018. (ECF No. 48)
Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 59 at 7.) Plaintiff filed
no objections and the time for doing so expired on May 20, 2019.
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. 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 and
Recommendation 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). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. 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”)
(citation omitted).
After reviewing the record, the Report, and the applicable law, the Court finds no
clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 59) by reference into this Order, Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED, and this case dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
2
Greenville, South Carolina
May 30, 2019
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3
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?