Kohn v. Turbeville Correctional Institution et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, for 31 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on June 6, 2011. (kbos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Michael A. Kohn,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Captain Kevin Coleman,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:10-784-JFA-JRM

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Michael A. Kohn, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was an inmate at the Turbeville
Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges that while his dorm was on cell restriction, he was not allowed to attend
religious services.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment2 should be
granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
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. 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). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff
of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion after the court issued an order inquiring
as to whether he wished to continue to prosecute the action.

1

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on May 4, 2011. However, the plaintiff
failed to file any objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 6, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2