Gray v. Alvin S Glenn Detention Center et al
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, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Officer Preilou; Sgt. Smith; Lt. Western;
Capt. Higgins; Capt. Buffer;
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.
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
July 17, 2012
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?