Collins v. Mauney et al

Filing 50

ORDER adopting 47 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 35 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 22 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/1/2016.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Robbie Collins,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.2: 14-cv-4270-RMG

)

~

)
Nurse Mauney, Nurse Holcomb, and Doctor)
Burns,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER

-------------------------)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 47) recommending that this Court grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss and deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court hereby adopts the R&R dismisses the action.
On November 3,2014, Plaintiff filed apro se complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free of
cruel and unusual punishment by failing to provide him with adequate and appropriate medical
care and treatment for shoulder pain. (Dkt. No.1). On April 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22), and on August 13,2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R
recommending that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution. (Dkt.
No. 33). Plaintiff subsequently filed objections to the R & R (Dkt. Nos. 36, 37), and a motion
for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35).
The Magistrate Judge entered a text order vacating the initial R & R on September 8,
2015 (Dkt No. 39). On January 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued another R & R, this time
recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs motion
for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 47). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the R & R.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id
Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "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," see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not required

to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Court has reviewed the R & R, the full record in this matter, and the relevant legal
authorities. Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is nothing
to create a genuine issue of material fact as to his § 1983 claims against any of the three
defendants. Plaintiffs complaint contains no allegations against Nurses Mauney and Holcomb,
and the record bears nothing that would suggest that Dr. Byrne acted with deliberate indifference
to Plaintiff s medical needs. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably and properly
summarized the factual and legal issues and appropriately recommended that Defendants'
motion to dismiss should be GRANTED (Dkt. No. 22) and PlaintiW s motion for summary
judgment should be DENIED (Dkt. No. 35). Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R
as the order of this Court.

2

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark Gerge
United States District C urt Judge
March _'_,2016
Charleston, South Carolina

3