Gray v. Alvin S Glenn Detention Center et al

Filing 80

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Defendants' motion for summary judgment 57 is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 7/17/2012. (mcot, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Aldeandre Gray, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Officer Preilou; Sgt. Smith; Lt. Western; ) Capt. Higgins; Capt. Buffer; ) Director Myers, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 5:10-3047-CMC-KDW OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On June 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. 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. On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff’s copy of the Report was returned by the United States Postal Service, marked “Undeliverable.” ECF No. 77. A review of the public access listing of incarcerated individuals at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center indicates that Plaintiff is no longer detained in that facility. 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. 1 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 reviews 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 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). After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the findings of the Report. Therefore, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina July 17, 2012 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?