Mayfield v. Neville et al

Filing 62

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 59 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wallace W Dixon; granting 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/15/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Gary C. Mayfield,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Dr. Neville; Nurse Fulton; Warden
Bush; Dr. Moore; Sgt. Jenkins;
Counselor Breon,
Lt. Kirkland,
Defendants.
_______________________________

) Civil Action No. 2:14-14-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Gary C. Mayfield (“the 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 Wallace W. Dixon for pre-trial handling and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
which was filed on September 23, 2014. (ECF No. 55.) The plaintiff filed no response to
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On November 13, 2014, Magistrate Judge
Dixon issued a Report recommending that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
be granted for failure to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion
requirement for all matters except for the pain medication allegation, and because the
defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 59 at 10.). The Magistrate Judge
advised the plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report
and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 59
at 11.) The plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on December 4,
2014.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

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).
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.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 15, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina