Anderson v. Sewell et al

Filing 35

ORDER adopting 31 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 9/4/12.(hhil, )

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

Derrick LaSahawn Anderson
a/ka Derrick L. Anderson

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Ofc. Sewell and Ofc Lasley,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:11-2686-MGL
Opinion and Order

Plaintiff Derrick Lashawn Anderson, an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department
of Corrections, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights
have been violated. (ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to “excessive
force and cruel and unusual punishment.” (Id. at 2, 5 of 5.) Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations
and move for summary judgment.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pretrial handling. The Magistrate
Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. On August 14, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment..
The Magistrate Judge noted “the undisputed evidence in the case sub judice reveals that Defendants
applied the force in a good faith effort to restore discipline.” See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S.Ct 1175.
1178 (2010). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment be granted. Nether party objected to the Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation and incorporates the Report and Recommendation herein. Defendants’ motion for
Summary Judgement is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
September 4, 2012