Dunbar v. Adedokun et al

Filing 55

ORDER adopting 51 Report and Recommendations, granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/14/13.(hhil, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION ) Civil Action No. 2:12-351-MGL ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) D. Adedokun, Program Coordinator, SCDC; ) OPINION AND ORDER N. Frierson, Oversight Coordinator, SCDC; ) Ms. Washington, Director ATU, Lee ) Correctional Institution; and Ms. Hilton, ) Classification, Lee County Correctional ) ) Institution, ) Defendants. ) ) _________________________________ Maurice Dunbar, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation. On July 27, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 45.) Since Plaintiff is pro se in this matter, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on July 30, 2012, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. ( ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on August 1, 2012. (ECF No. 49.) On November 28, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hendricks issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 51.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. objections and the time for doing so expired on December 17, 2012. Plaintiff has filed no 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.”) (citation omitted). After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 51) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this case dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge Spartanburg, South Carolina January 14, 2013 -2-

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?