Hernandez v. Meeks et al
Filing
53
ORDER The Court adopts the 43 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Defendants' 32 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 03/13/2019.(hada, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
MAURO GOROSTIETA HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
vs.
§
§
B J MEEKS, Warden; DR. STEPHEN HOEY; §
§
L SANCHEZ, HIT; N ROSARIO, RN;
L CROSS, HSA; CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, NP;§
and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
§
Defendants.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-00661-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
This case was filed as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United
States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and the
action be dismissed with prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 12, 2018, ECF No. 43, but Plaintiff
failed to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's
note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright V. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 84546 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and this action is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 13th day of March, 2019, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
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?