Robinson v. Ragland et al

Filing 101

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the parties' objections, relevant filings, and applicable law and concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarized the appli cable law. The Report recommends that the motion for summary judgment be denied in part such that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Ragland, Dillard, and Morgan for excessive force survive summary judgment. ECF No. 59 . After careful conside ration, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Supplement to the Report, ECF Nos. 87 , 89 , are ACCEPTED. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 59 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth i n the Report. In light of this Court's acceptance of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation resulting in the excessive force claim surviving summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge is hereby directed: (i) to appoint counsel to repr esent the Plaintiff; (ii) to hold a hearing with the parties and their counsel to seek Consent to conduct all proceedings in this matter, including trial, before the Magistrate Judge; and (iii) to enter a Scheduling Order. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 03/23/2017. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Gary Lavon Robinson

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Thomas Ragland; Nikon Morgan;
)
Christopher Dillard; Faith Chappell;
)
and Jason Palmer,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 4:15-cv-3472-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Gary Lavon Robinson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF Nos. 1, 27. On April 11,
2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 59, to which Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition, ECF No. 71. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (the Report) filed on December 16, 2016, by United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case is assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). ECF No. 87. 1 In the Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. Id. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report, ECF Nos. 93, 100, and Defendants
filed a Reply, ECF No. 97. This matter is now ripe for disposition.

1

The Magistrate Judge also filed a Supplement to the Report and Recommendation correcting a scrivener’s
error in the original Report’s Conclusion section. ECF No. 89.

The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. 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 carefully reviewed the Report,
the parties’ objections, relevant filings, and applicable law and concludes that the Magistrate Judge
accurately summarized the applicable law. The Report recommends that the motion for summary
judgment be denied in part such that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Ragland, Dillard, and
Morgan for excessive force survive summary judgment. ECF No. 59. After careful consideration,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Supplement to the Report, ECF Nos.
87, 89, are ACCEPTED. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 59,
is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in the Report.
In light of this Court’s acceptance of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
resulting in the excessive force claim surviving summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge is hereby
directed: (i) to appoint counsel to represent the Plaintiff; (ii) to hold a hearing with the parties

and their counsel to seek Consent to conduct all proceedings in this matter, including trial,
before the Magistrate Judge; and (iii) to enter a Scheduling Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
March 23, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina