Deans v. South Carolina Department Mental Health et al

Filing 83

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 80 Report and Recommendation, granting 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 6/5/2013. (jpet, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
) Civil Action No. 3:12-662-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
)
Dr. Wadman,
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
William Deans,

Plaintiff William Deans (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to Title
42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph
R. McCrorey for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation. On November 19, 2012,
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 55.) Since Plaintiff is pro se in this
matter, the Court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975)
on November 20, 2012, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need
for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 22,
2013 (ECF No. 68), Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 69) on January 29, 2013, and a
Supplemental Affidavit to her Reply on February 4, 2013, (ECF No. 70), and on February 11, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a Sur Reply. (ECF No. 74.)
On March 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge McCrorey issued a Report recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and this case be dismissed. (ECF No. 80.)
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to
the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 80

at 22.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on May 31, 2013.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which
a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for
clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in 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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 80) by reference into this order. It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this case
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
June 5, 2013

-2-