Hicks v. Greenwood County Detention Center et al
Filing
33
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 31 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying as moot 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Complaint in the above titled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/12/2018.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Monzell L. Hicks,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Donna Miller,
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-03320-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 31], filed on August 23, 2018, recommending that the
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report [ECF
No. 31] and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the
Complaint in the above-titled action is dismissed with prejudice.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates
herein without a full recitation. [ECF No. 31]. As brief background, Plaintiff filed a pro se
action against Defendant, a nurse in the Greenwood County Detention Center, as a result of her
refusal to allow Plaintiff additional pain medication or a referral to an outside physician after a
fall. [ECF No. 1]. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 27, 2018 [ECF. No.
26], to which Plaintiff did not respond. The Magistrate Judge issued an Order [ECF No. 27],
advising Plaintiff of the necessity of a response, and Plaintiff still failed to respond. The
Magistrate Judge then filed a second Order [ECF No. 29], once again advising Plaintiff that his
failure to respond to Defendant’s motion would result in a dismissal of his Complaint. [ECF No.
29]. Plaintiff again failed to respond. The Magistrate Judge then filed this Report, recommending
1
that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s
order and lack of prosecution. [ECF No. 31].
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court; the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976).
This court is charged with engaging in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which the parties have made specific objections; the court may accept, reject
or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III.
DISCUSSION
The parties were notified of their right to file objections. No objections to the Report
were filed. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation without modification. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199. Absent objections, the court must only ensure that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note). If a party fails to file a specific, written, objection to the Report and
Recommendation the party forfeits the right to appeal the District Court’s decision concerning
the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
2
IV.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the above
titled case. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No.
31] and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Complaint
in the above titled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 26] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
October 12, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?