Drummond v. Spartanburg County et al

Filing 194

AMENDED ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re ECF No. 191 Order Ruling on Report and Recommendation: ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 185 ) to the extent it does not contradict this Order, and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant McDonald's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal claims, the other Defendants' motion for summar y judgment (ECF No. 150 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal claims, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 169 ) is DENIED, Plaintiff's motion for a third-party doctor examination (ECF No. 184 ) is DENIED, Plaintiff&# 039;s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and his state claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE so he can pursue them in state court if he wishes to do so. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 2/6/2017. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
EDWARD DRUMMOND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAJOR NEAL URCH, Director; COUNTY
ATTORNEY VIRGINA DUPONT; ASLEY
MCCANN, Legal; SGT. THOMAS; NURSE
WHITE; AND DR. MCDONALD,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-4285-MGL-KDW
§
§
§
§
§
§

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANT MCDONALD’S MOTION AND
THE OTHER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AS TO PLAINTIFF’ S FEDERAL CLAIMS,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A THIRD-PARTY DOCTOR EXAMINATION,
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE,
AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant McDonald’s motion for summary judgment be granted, the
other defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment be denied, Plaintiff’s motion for a third-party doctor examination be denied, and Plaintiff’s
case be dismissed. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation

to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific
objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 16, 2017, and the Clerk of Court entered
Plaintiff's objections on January 3, 2017. The Court has carefully considered the objections, but
finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
The Court’s characterization of Plaintiff’s January 3, 2017, submission as “objections” is a
charitable one. Frankly, Plaintiff has largely failed to object to the Report. Instead, he generally
makes arguments that have no merit. Therefore, the Court will overrule his “objections.”
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standards
set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection, adopts the Report to the extent it does not
contradict this Order, and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant McDonald's motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, the other defendants' motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is DENIED, Plaintiff's motion for a third-party doctor examination is DENIED, Plaintiff's
federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and his state claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE so he can pursue them in state court is he wishes to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Signed this 6th day of February, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3