Al-Haqq v. Dean et al

Filing 80

ORDER adopting 77 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 2/15/2018.(ssam, )

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. Defendants A.W. Dean, Major Chavalus, Capt. Pat, Capt.
Coleman, Capt. Commander, Lt. Redding, Sgt. Canty, Ofc. Graham, Ofc. Pressley, Ofc. Ragan, Ofc.
Kennedy, and Dr. Alden filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.1 ECF No. 38. 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. 40. Plaintiff filed a
Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.2 ECF No. 64. 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

1

Dr. Lemon was previously dismissed by an Order dated December 21, 2017. ECF No.

74.
2

The Magistrate notes that it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s filing was only responsive to a
previously ruled upon Motion to Dismiss or if it was intended as a Response to the Motion to
Dismiss and the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. The recommendation of the
Magistrate is made on the merits of the Motion for Summary Judgment.

matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. ECF No. 77. 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 the Motion
for Summary Judgment be granted. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this
Order. Defendants A.W. Dean, Major Chavalus, Capt. Pat, Capt. Coleman, Capt. Commander, Lt.

Redding, Sgt. Canty, Ofc. Graham, Ofc. Pressley, Ofc. Ragan, Ofc. Kennedy, and Dr. Alden’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [38] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 15, 2017
Spartanburg, South Carolina