Singleton v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, The
ORDER : The Magistrate Judges Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 83 ); Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 85 ); Defendants motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. # 43 ); and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and request for discovery is DENIED. (Doc. # 49 ). Defendants Mr. William Byers, Ms. Lighsner, Mr. D. Wesley, and Dr. John Doe are DISMISSED without prejudice, and this case is to be closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/29/12.(hhil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael Singleton, # 344630,
f.k.a Michael A. Singleton # 1081861, f/k/a
Michael A. Singleton # 63483, a/k/a Justice
Warden Bernard McKie a/k/a Warden Mackey;
Mr. William Byers; Ms. Lighsner; Mr. D. Wesley; )
and Dr. John Doe,
C/A No.: 2:11-676-TLW-BHH
This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Bruce H. Hendricks, to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In
her Report, Magistrate Judge Hendricks recommends that the Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment be granted (Doc. # 43) and that Plaintiff’s “motion for summary judgment and request for
discovery” be denied (Doc. # 49). It is further recommended that Defendants Mr. William Byers,
Ms. Lighsner, Mr. D. Wesley, and Dr. John Doe be dismissed without prejudice, and that this case
be closed. (Doc. # 83). The Report was filed on March 9, 2012. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report on March 23, 2012.
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the
magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
A review of the record indicates that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the
applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that
the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 83); Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED
(Doc. # 85); Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. # 43); and Plaintiff’s
“motion for summary judgment and request for discovery” is DENIED. (Doc. # 49). Defendants
Mr. William Byers, Ms. Lighsner, Mr. D. Wesley, and Dr. John Doe are DISMISSED without
prejudice, and this case is to be closed.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 29, 2012
Florence, South Carolina
As noted in the Report, these four additional Defendants appear on the docket.
However, in light of Magistrate Judge Hendricks’ ruling on the Motion to Amend/Correct
Complaint (see Docs. # 35 & #36), and the undersigned’s Order of October 24, 2011 (Doc. #47),
the Court determines that, as recommended, these four Defendants should be dismissed at this
time, without prejudice.
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?