Scott v. Ray et al
Filing
69
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's R&R (ECF No. 67 ). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34 ) and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 02/12/2019. (dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Bernard Scott,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Patricia Ray, Allison Days,
)
Angela Sumpter, and Cpl. Shannon, )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-03100-RBH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, who recommends granting Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment and dismissing this action.1 See ECF No. 67.
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 this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
1
The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 (D.S.C.).
2
Defendants’ objections were due by February 7, 2019, and Plaintiff’s objections were due by February 11,
2019, as he was served with the objections by mail. See ECF Nos. 67 & 68. As the R & R explains, Plaintiff is no
longer incarcerated, so the prison mailbox rule does not apply. See generally Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271
(1988).
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 67]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 34] and DISMISSES this action with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
February 12, 2019
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
2
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?