Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 329

ORDER adopting the 324 Report and Recommendation, and granting Defendant's 302 amended motion for summary judgment. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/15/2021. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Darrell L. Goss,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Richard Cothran,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-2124-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Darrell L. Goss’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights against Defendant Richard Cothran (“Defendant”), Warden of Turbeville Correctional
Institution, in his individual capacity, for the alleged failure to protect Plaintiff from inmate
assaults and the threat of inmate assaults due to increased gang violence. 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 May 21, 2021, Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant
Defendant’s amended motion for summary judgment. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report
within fourteen days of being served with a copy.
On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the Report, indicating that he “offers
no objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation” and asking “the District
Court to adopt the Report in its entirety.” (ECF No. 326 at 1.) Defendant also filed a
response to the Report offering no objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations. (ECF No. 327 at 1.)
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 party has filed specific objections to the Report, 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 thorough analysis and her finding that Defendant is entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s most recent Report (ECF No. 324) in full and specifically incorporates it herein, and
the Court grants Defendant’s amended motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 302).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 15, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina

3