Williams v. Lewis et al

Filing 188

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court overrules Williams's objections, adopts the 149 Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Williams's motions for summary judgment (# 129 and # 140 ) are DENIED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/27/2020. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
LARRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT B. LEWIS, SUSAN M. DUFFY,
FELICIA OGUNSILE, ADAM T.
BRADBURN, CAPT. LANE, UNIT
COUNSELOR BUTLER, and WARDEN
GLAND,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION 5:19-CV-0182-MGL-KDW
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Larry Williams (Williams) brought his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, coupled with his state court
claim, against Defendants Scott B. Lewis, Susan M. Duffy, Felicia Ogunsile, Adam T. Bradburn,
Captain Lane, Unit Counselor Butler, and Warden Gland (Defendants). Williams is self represented.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment be denied.
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 12, 2019, the Clerk of Court entered
Williams’s objections on December 20, 2019, and Defendants filed their reply on January 2, 2020.
The Clerk also entered several letters and additional attachments from Williams around this time
period. The Court has liberally construed those letters and additional attachments as supplemental
objections. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed all of Williams’s objections, but holds them to be
without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.
As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, Williams “has not met the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a) in that he [has] failed to provide both a factual and legal basis for his motions. [He]
must offer more than a restatement of the complaint.” Report at 2. Consequently, the Court will
overrule Williams’s objections and deny his motions for summary judgment.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court overrules Williams’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Williams’s motions for summary judgment are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 27th day of April, 2020, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Williams is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2