Breyan v. Thomas et al

Filing 62

ORDER adopting 59 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/14/2018.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Michael A. Breyan, #332098,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Capt. Thomas Commander,
)
A/W Kenneth Sharp, and W arden
)
Cecilia Reynolds,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-3926-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule

73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
preliminary determinations. On July 30, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker
issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending
that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Attached to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the
Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy.
On August 9, 2018, the copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, which was mailed
to Plaintiff at his last known address, was returned and marked, “return to sender” and
“probation release.” Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, he was specifically warned a
number of times that he must keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing if his address
changes for any reason. (See ECF Nos. 6, 12, 21, and 30.) Despite these specific
warnings, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address, and it

appears that he no longer wishes to pursue this action. Moreover, in the absence of a
timely objection, the Court reviews the matter for clear error. (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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable
law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds
no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 59) and
grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 14, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina

2