Buff v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 74

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 65 ). Accordingly, Defendant South Carolina Department of Correction's Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 26 ) is hereby GRANTED and the claims against South Carolina Department of Corrections are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 8/6/2014. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
David Keith Buff,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections; )
Carl Von Mutius; Justin Aranda; and
)
Douglas Cook,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 5-13-cv-01901-TLW-KDW

ORDER
Plaintiff, David Keith Buff (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on or about July 11, 2013 against the Defendants,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising out of his confinement at Lieber
Correctional Institution in the South Carolina Department of Corrections. (Doc. #1).
Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections (“Defendant SCDC”) filed a
Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment on February 18, 2014.
(Doc. #26). Plaintiff filed a Response opposing Defendant SCDC’s motion on or about May 1,
2014 (Doc. #40), to which Defendant SCDC replied on May 9, 2014 (Doc. #43). The Plaintiff
filed a supplemental brief in response to Defendant SCDC’s motion on May 23, 2014, to which
Defendant SCDC replied on June 3, 2014. (Docs. #58; 63).
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued on June 12, 2014 by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, to
whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #65). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that this Court grant Defendant SCDC’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative,

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #26) and that Defendant SCDC be dismissed with
prejudice as a Defendant in the above-captioned case. (See Doc. #65). The Plaintiff did not file
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Plaintiff did not respond to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report recommending dismissal of Defendant SCDC from this case. The deadline for
the Plaintiff to file Objections expired on June 30, 2014. (See Doc. #65).
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. In the absence
of objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983).
This Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation,
the relevant filings, and the record in this case. The Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that
the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #65). Accordingly,
Defendant South Carolina Department of Correction’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #26) is hereby GRANTED and the claims against South
Carolina Department of Corrections are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 6, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2