Frierson v. Tripp et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 60 Motion for TRO; denying 84 Motion to order reply; affirming 93 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 2/29/2012.(eric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Marcus Antonio Frierson, #247864,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ofc. Trippl Lt. B. Haney; Ms. Burch, Mental
Health; Nurse Felder-Gadson; Nurse Ms.
Manigolt; IGC Ms. Jinkins; Ms. Gant, Ofc. Ms.
Connelly, Head Nurse; Ofc. Gullet; Ms. Lee,
Mental Health; Ms. Chase, Nurse; Ms. James,
Nurse; Ms. Paquevacc, Nurse; Ms Andrews,
Nurse; Ms. Conner, Mental Health; Ms. Gray,
Mental Health,
Defendants.
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:10-3103 DCN

ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff’s motion for
TRO and motion to order reply be denied, and that the case be dismissed in its entirety.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report 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(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress
did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file
timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v.

Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984 ).1 No objections
have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately
summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is AFFIRMED, defendants’ motions for summary judgment are
GRANTED, plaintiff’s motions for TRO and to order reply are DENIED, and the case is
DISMISSED in its entirety.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

David C. Norton
United States District Judge
February 29, 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1

In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant
must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's
report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice
must be 'sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him
of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had
to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate
level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.