Al-Haqq v. Dean et al

Filing 74

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 27 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Dr. Lemons Motion to Dismiss 27 is granted without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 12/20/2017.(cwhi, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Bilal A. Al-Haqq,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
A.W. Dean, Major Chavalus, Capt. Pat, Capt.
Coleman, Capt. Commander, Lt. Redding, Sgt.
Canty, Ofc. Graham, Ofc. Pressley, Ofc. Ragan,
Ofc. Kennedy, Dr. Alden, Dr. Lemon,

C/A No. 2:17-cv-535-DCC

ORDER

Defendants.
__________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violations of civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Defendant Dr. Lemon filed a Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 27. A Roseboro order was entered by
the Court and mailed to Plaintiff, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and
the need for Plaintiff to file an adequate response. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff filed a Response in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 64, and Defendant Dr. Lemon filed a Reply, ECF No.
68. This Motion is now ripe for resolution.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On November 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that Defendant Dr. Lemon’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. ECF No. 69.
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to
the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and

the time to do so has passed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See U.S.C.
§ 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in
the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation that Defendant
Dr. Lemon’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference
in this Order. Defendant Dr. Lemon’s Motion to Dismiss [27] is granted without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
December 20, 2017
Spartanburg, South Carolina