Johnson v. Arwood et al

Filing 58

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53 ) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33 ) is GRANTED and this case dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 07/29/2014. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Florence DIVISION
) Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-2525-MGL
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Chief Freddie Arwood, Ofc. Chapman, and )
Sgt. Rodney Hope,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
Jason A. Johnson, a/k/a Jason Alan
Johnson,

Plaintiff Jason A. Johnson, a/k/a Jason Alan Johnson, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights. (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 Thomas E. Rogers, III for pre-trial handling and a
Report and Recommendation. On February 24, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment claiming an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 33.) Because
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 February 25, 2014, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive
motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff filed his
response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on March 12, 2014. (ECF No. 40.)
On April 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants’
motion for summary judgment be granted, and that this case be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure
to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. 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).
The Court has conducted the required de novo review and finds Plaintiff's objections are
without merit, and are thus overruled. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in
this case, the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, this court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts, applies the correct principles
of law concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies, and fully addresses the entirety of
Plaintiff’s arguments. Plaintiff’s objection fails to identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s wellreasoned and supported analysis. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to direct the Court to any evidence in the
record to support his contentions that the Magistrate Judge erred in his decision to recommend the
grant of summary judgment to Defendants.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation
and Objections, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper. Accordingly,

-2-

the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53) by reference into
this order. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33)
is GRANTED and this case dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
July 29, 2014

-3-