Goodwin v. Salley et al

Filing 142

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 139). Consequently, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 114) are granted. Signed by District Judge, Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 3/5/2025. (dgar) Modified on 3/5/2025 to edit docket text (dgar).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Antwon Goodwin.,

C/A No. 2:23-cv-1338-JFA-MGB
Plaintiff,

v.
Jessica Salley, et al.,

ORDER
Defendants.

Antwon Goodwin, proceeding pro se, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.),
the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. Specifically, the Magistrate
Judge conducted an initial review of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 114).
After reviewing the motion and all responsive briefing, the Magistrate Judge
assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation 1 (“Report”),
which opines that Defendants’ motion should be granted. (ECF No. 139). The Report sets
forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court
incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on January 27, 2025. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
1

by February 10, 2025. Id. Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so
has elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report
and prior filings indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 139). Consequently, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 114) are granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 5, 2025
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
2