Carson v. Reynolds et al

Filing 64

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 51 ) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant Washingtons Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 04/10/2014. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Denon D. Carson, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cecilia Reynolds,
Jerry Washington, and
Philips Riggins,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 4:13-1988-TMC-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Jerry Washington (ECF No. 35) be granted. (ECF No. 51).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 51-1), and he timely
filed objections. (ECF No. 62).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). The court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In that
case, the court reviews the Report only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

As set forth above, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 62).
However, his objections fail to address any specific, dispositive portion of the Report. The court
has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections and finds no reason to deviate
from the Report’s recommended disposition. Moreover, the court notes that two of Plaintiff’s
objections address issues regarding his claims against Defendants Cecilia Reynolds and Philips
Riggins, which were not addressed in this Report.1
Based on the foregoing, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 51) and
incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant Washington’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 35) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

April 10, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1

Defendants Reynolds and Riggins have filed a separate motion for summary judgment, which remains pending
before the magistrate judge. (ECF No. 55).