Small v. Eagleton et al

Filing 70

OPINION AND ORDER adopting 67 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 38 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 57 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/31/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Clarence Small,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Warden Willie L. Eagleton, Official
Capacity; Officer Bradsher; Officer Shaw,
all sued in their individual capacities,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 2:16-2553-HMH-MGB
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Clarence Small (“Small”), proceeding pro se,
alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Baker recommends granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Small’s
motions for summary judgment. (R&R 15, ECF No. 67.)
Small filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate

1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Small’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Small’s objections are without merit.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Baker’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, docket number 29, is
granted. It is further
ORDERED that Small’s motions for summary judgment, docket numbers 38 and 57, are
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 31, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

2