Hammond v. Prisma Health et al

Filing 41

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 37 ], declining to exercise pendant jurisdiction over any potential state law claims, denying Plaintiff leave for further amendment and dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 03/05/2025. (cpri)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dustin Hammond,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Matthew Charles Anderson, M.D.,
)
)
Drew Alan Ratner, M.D., and
Michael James Coleelo, M.D.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-6722-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Dustin Hammond’s pro se (“Plaintiff”)
second amended complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 30.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On February 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
(“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this matter
without prejudice and without further leave to amend. (ECF No. 37.) Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to allege facts to
state a plausible claim against Defendants pursuant to § 1983 or for medical malpractice
under state law. (Id.) 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.

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, no objections to the Report have been filed, and 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 careful analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and specifically incorporates
the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 37), and the Court dismisses this action
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Court also
declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction over any potential state law claims and
denies Plaintiff leave for further amendment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 5, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina

2