Sheppard v. Forrest et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts and incorporates the Report 99 by reference in this order. Defendants motion for summary judgment 72 is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice. All other pending motions are hereby deemed moot. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 08/16/2012. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dexter Antonio Sheppard, #312344,
Lt. Robert Forrest, Timothy Riley, Warden, )
Jonathan Ozmint, Agency Director, Gary )
D. Lane, Associate Warden, Ann B.
Hallman, Central Grievance Director,
Jerry C. Alexander, Capt. at TRCI,
Christine Thompson Grievance
Coordinator, Laura E. Caldwell, Associate )
Warden, R.L. Turner,
C/A NO. 4:11-486-CMC-TER
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff alleges “false imprisonment…malicious
accusation, malicious prosecution, joint negligence [and] malicious injury all under the 1983
section.” (See Compl. at 4 (ECF No. 1). As construed by the Defendants and the Magistrate Judge,
it appears that Plaintiff’s claims are more correctly construed as a single allegation that his due
process rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing which occurred April 14, 2010.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and that
all other pending motions be deemed moot. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he
failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.
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 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 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 considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the Report and its conclusions. Therefore, the court adopts
and incorporates the Report by reference in this order.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and this matter is dismissed with
prejudice. All other pending motions are hereby deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
August 16, 2012
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?