Greene v. Stirling et al
ORDER: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. (ECF No. 66 .) It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/1/2017. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bryan P. Stirling;
Jerry B. Adger;
Ms. Smith, and
Civil Case No.: 5:16-cv-00587-JMC
Pro Se Plaintiff Christopher Greene (“Plaintiff”), a former inmate at Lee Correctional
Institution, Lieber Correctional Institution, and MacDougall Correctional Institutions in the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), filed a Complaint against 1) Mr. Bryan P. Stirling;
2) Mr. Jerry B. Adger; 3) Ms. Cecilia Reynolds; 4) Ms. Angelica Brown; 5) Ms. Vivian McCall;
6) Ms. Tonia Washington; 7) Ms. Tonya Nelson; 8) Ms. Sophia Richardson; 9) Ms. Sara Adger;
10) Ms. Smith; and 11) Jason Summers (“Defendants”).
Plaintiff claims that his federal
constitutional rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when
SCDC and the South Carolina Department of Probation Parole and Pardon Services (“SCDPPPS”)
staff members issued disciplinary sanctions against him because he refused to attend an alcohol
treatment program as a condition of parole. (ECF No. 1 at 4-9.) Plaintiff states that his disciplinary
sanctions include loss of canteen privileges for 30 days, loss of telephone privileges for 30 days,
and loss of 30 days of good-time credits. (ECF No. 12.) Furthermore, Plaintiff requests damages
in the amount of $35,000.00, a jury trial, declaratory relief, and reimbursement of his court fees.
(ECF No. 1 at 9.) On April, 21, 2017, the court partially summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice as to Defendants SCDC Director Bryan Stirling,
SCDPPPS Director Jerry Adger, Warden Cecilia Reynolds, and Vivian McCall. (ECF No. 63.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on May 10, 2017, determined
that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion
for summary judgment (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 56) by March 27, 2017. (ECF No. 66 at
1.) On April 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to inform her whether he desires to
proceed with his Complaint. (ECF No. 66 at 2.) The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file a
response to the Motion to Dismiss by May 8, 2017, but Plaintiff did not comply with this Order.
(Id.) The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards
on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) 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 this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 66 at 4.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In
the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results
in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
(ECF No. 66.) It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice
for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Michelle Childs
United States District Judge
June 1, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?