Dunbar v. Byars et al

Filing 41

ORDER adopting 36 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, granting 28 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/22/13.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Maurice Dunbar,
Plaintiff,
v.
Director of SCDC Bill Byars; and Head
Officials of daily operations and procedures
in SCDC-State,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 2:11-2243-JFA-BHH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Maurice Dunbar, brings this action pursuant to the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (RA) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At the time of
the filing of this complaint, the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Allendale Correctional
Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC).
The plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes on May 4, 2011 and was assigned a medical
class with work restrictions at the SCDC. In his complaint, he contends he was discriminated
against when he was not allowed to participate in the work program. The plaintiff concedes
that his security level at the time was 1B. However a level 1A is required to qualify for the
work program.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific
objection is 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).

1

Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should grant the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment.2 The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was docketed on January 30, 2013. The plaintiff did not file any
objections to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and
incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is hereby granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 22, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of
the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.

2