Al-Haqq v. Worrick et al

Filing 55

ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendation; denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. The action shall continue as to Defendant Bryant in his individual capacity. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/30/2015.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Bilal A. Al-Haqq, # 126806,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Major Walter Worrick;
)
Ernest Rome, DHO;
)
Ms. V. Jones, Inmate Representative;
)
Ms. Marilyn Smart, Grievance Coordinator; )
Ms. C. Smith, Caseworker;
)
Ms. Edith Wetherbee, DHO Recorder; and )
Cpl. Marvin Bryant,
)
1
in their individual and official capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 2:14-08-TMC-WWD

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (‟Report”), recommending that the motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendant Cpl. Marvin Bryant (ECF No. 41) be denied, and the action should continue as
to Defendant Bryant in his individual capacity. (ECF No. 48). The parties were advised of their
right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 48 at 10). However, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant
Bryant filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In
the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only
By order of The Honorable Joseph F. Anderson filed on September 30, 2014, all Defendants
were dismissed from this action with the exception of Cpl. Marvin Bryant. (ECF No. 44).

1

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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 48) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that
the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Bryant (ECF No. 41) is DENIED, and the
action shall continue as to Defendant Bryant in his individual capacity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 30, 2015

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.