Chestnut v. Turbeville Correctional Institution et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, for 33 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on May 27, 2011. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Craig. L. Chestnut, #333070,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Ofc. D. Green; Angela Brown; and
)
James Tollison,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 3:10-1559-TLW-JRM

ORDER
Plaintiff, Craig L. Chestnut, (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, on June 24,
2010. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendations
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case
had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District
Court grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 33). The plaintiff filed
objections to the report. (Doc. # 36). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following
standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the
Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case,
the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate
judge's findings or recommendations.

Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report. (Docs. # 36). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. # 24).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
May 27, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

2