Geissler v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 45

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report (ECF # 40 ) of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The motion for summary judgment 25 is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 09/08/2021. (dsto, )

4:20-cv-02597-DCC

Date Filed 09/08/21

Entry Number 45

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Russell C. Geissler,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections and Bryan Sterling,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 4:20-cv-02597-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his
civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 30, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition and Defendants
filed a reply. ECF Nos. 34, 37. On June 29, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the motion be granted. ECF No. 40. 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 not filed objections to the Report
and the time to do so has lapsed.1

1

The Court notes that the Report was returned to this Court as undeliverable. ECF
No. 42. The enveloped was marked “released.” Id. Plaintiff was specifically warned that

4:20-cv-02597-DCC

Date Filed 09/08/21

Entry Number 45

Page 2 of 3

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 will review 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 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)).
As stated above, Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
Accordingly, after considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The motion for summary judgment [25] is
GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
September 8, 2021
it was his responsibility to keep the Court updated as to any change of address and has
successfully updated his address with the Court several times. ECF No. 7; see also ECF
Nos. 13, 26, 35.

4:20-cv-02597-DCC

Spartanburg, South Carolina

Date Filed 09/08/21

Entry Number 45

Page 3 of 3